[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 165 (Friday, November 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14986-S15059]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--
                                Resumed


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:


                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the conference 
     report to accompany the District of Columbia appropriations 
     bill.
         Trent Lott, Ted Stevens, Larry E. Craig, Judd Gregg, Tim 
           Hutchinson, Don Nickles, Mike Crapo, Connie Mack, Slade 
           Gorton, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Arlen Specter, Pat 
           Roberts, Chuck Hagel, Richard Shelby, Thad Cochran, and 
           John Warner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that the conference report accompanying H.R. 3194, an act making 
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other 
activities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues of said 
District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Washington (Mr. 
Gorton) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon (Mr. Smith) would vote yea.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) 
is absent attending a funeral.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 87, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 373 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--9

     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Grams
     Kohl
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Gorton
     McCain
     Murray
     Smith (OR)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 87, the nays are 9. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having he voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.


                       FISHERIES RESEARCH VESSEL

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the NOAA budget includes $51.56 million in 
funds to procure the first of four state-of-the-art fishery research 
vessels to conduct critical research on our Nation's fishery resources. 
This is an important step in providing for sustainable fisheries for 
our fishermen, U.S. trade, and U.S. consumers. It is my understanding 
that these ships will be some of the most technically complex research 
vessels in the world. It Is critical that the procurement of thee ships 
reflect this complexity, and that all U.S. shipbuilders with technical 
expertise in oceanographic research ships will have the opportunity to 
offer their expertise to the Government. Is it the Senator's 
understanding that this solicitation will be open to all U.S. 
shipbuilders, without set-asides that limit competition?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Majority Leader is correct. In providing for the 
first of these ships to be built, we understood that the public will 
benefit from free and unrestricted competition on this vessel. The 
demands placed on our fishery management system dictate that

[[Page S14987]]

we procure the most technically sophisticated ship possible from our 
U.S. shipbuilding industry. The only way to guarantee this result is to 
conduct a free and open competition among all U.S. shipbuilders and 
meet with Dr. Baker, the Director of NOAA, who has agreed to homeport 
this vessel in Kodiak. By locating it mid way between the Gulf of 
Alaska and the Bering Sea, it will have ready access to the Nation's 
two largest fisheries.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my friends from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, 
and Nevada, Senator Reid, have worked hard to protect the mining jobs 
in their States and in mine, and I extend my thanks to them for working 
with me to keep the Department of Interior from mindlessly destroying 
jobs and lives by trying to rewrite the Mining Law. We want to make 
sure the intent of the provision on mill sites included in the 
Department of Interior portion of the appropriations bill is clear, and 
would like to ask your clarification on a few points.
  Mr. REID. I thank my friend from Idaho for his hard work. I want to 
confirm my understanding of one absolutely critical thing with respect 
to the language in Section 337 protecting plans of operations submitted 
prior to November 7, 1997. It is my understanding that the language 
covers revisions, modifications, and amendments to such plans that are 
made before such plans are fully approved by the BLM or Forest Service. 
If an as yet unapproved plan of operations was submitted prior to 
November 7, 1997 and revised earlier this year, for instance, then the 
proposed operation, as revised, would be protected. It is the 
operation, not a specific property position--whether mining claims or 
mill sites--that is protected. This is very important to my State and I 
ask the chairman to specifically confirm my understanding.
  Mr. STEVENS. I can say unequivocally that your understanding is 
correct. We all know that plans and operations are often revised by the 
applicant before being finally approved. Indeed, some revisions are 
required by the BLM or Forest Service during the plan review process. 
It is the clear intent of the language to protect revisions made prior 
to the plan's final approval. It is the operation, not a specific 
property position (whether mining claims or mill sites), that is 
protected. Anything less would be grossly inequitable and directly 
contrary to the clear intent of the conference.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friends from Alaska and Nevada for that 
clarification. It is also my understanding that the provision is 
intended to protect large investments made in mining operations 
approved by the Department of Interior under its old interpretation of 
the law. Frankly, it would be shameful for us to endorse the actions of 
a Federal agency that approves a project, allows the proponent to spend 
millions of dollars to develop it, and then changes its mind about what 
the law says and on that basis shuts the operation down. I understand 
that the provision would protect these enormous investments and the 
jobs they create from such arbitrary action by the Department of 
Interior.
  Mr. STEVENS. My friend is right. In compromising the House and Senate 
versions, our intention was to avoid the retroactive application of the 
Solicitor's opinion of November 7, 1997 and the resulting destruction 
of existing jobs and investments.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the chairman for that clarification. Finally, 
as my friend knows, mining operations are large, complex undertakings, 
and circumstances change all the time, requiring changes in the plan of 
operations. Miners must ask the BLM and Forest Service to approve 
amendments to their plans all the time in order to keep operating. In 
fact, the BLM and Forest Service often require these miners to amend 
their plans. I'm concerned that unless these types of amendments to 
existing plans are protected, the provision we are adopting would be of 
very little value. The BLM or the Forest Service could simply require 
an operator of a large existing mine to amend its plan of operations, 
and then deny the plan amendment and shut down the operation on the 
basis of the Solicitor's opinion. I would like clarification that 
amendments to existing plans are protected by the provision.
  Mr. STEVENS. I assure my colleague that it was never our intent to 
shut down existing operations under any circumstances. Applying the 
opinion to these existing operations through the back door of a plan 
amendment would undermine the entire provision and make it meaningless. 
Anybody who knows the mining industry knows that plan amendments are 
routine. We want operators to be able to amend their plans when 
necessary to make them better. The provision covers such amendments, 
and protects them from the legal interpretation contained in the 
Solicitor's opinion.
  Mr. REID. I thank my friends from Alaska, the committee chairmen, for 
these important clarifications.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for many years I have been working with the 
Minority Leader, Senator Daschle, to develop and enact legislation to 
provide liability relief for recyclers of scrap metal and other 
material, under the Superfund program. I am pleased that we have been 
able to work together to reach a successful resolution on this issue, 
and that the legislation incorporates the agreement of a broad spectrum 
of parties.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I have appreciated the hard work of the Majority Leader 
on this issue, and I am pleased that this legislation has been included 
as part of the omnibus appropriations bill. I hope that this provision 
will serve to achieve our goal of encouraging recycling.
  It is also my understanding that the language of the bill is not 
intended to exempt from liability parties who had reason to believe 
that the recyclable material originated from the portion of a DOD, DOE, 
NRC or Agreement State-licensed facility where source, byproduct or 
special nuclear material, as defined in the Atomic Energy Act, was 
processed, utilized or managed. Is it your understanding that the 
agreement does not cover these materials?
  Mr. LOTT. Yes, that is correct.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this issue is of great significance to 
many of my colleagues and to members of the public. In particular, it 
is of great interest to the Senator from Arkansas, and I deeply 
appreciate her leadership on this issue.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, for the last six years I have worked in 
Congress to provide relief from liability to legitimate recyclers. 
Congress never intended to create a disincentive to recycle when it 
created the Superfund program, and for that reason, I am delighted that 
this legislation was included in the omnibus appropriations bill.
  In addition, I agree with Senator Daschle's clarification of the 
intent of this bill. I am very concerned about the possibility that 
this legislation could be misinterpreted to relieve from Superfund 
liability persons who release radioactive material to recyclers, such 
as those in the steel industry in my home state of Arkansas, who may be 
unaware of the danger of the products they are receiving, and who could 
in turn pass it on to consumers. I believe it is critical that we 
further clarify that this was not intended, and I am hopeful that the 
Majority Leader and the Minority Leader will work with me to do so.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I agree completely with the Senator from Arkansas. Since 
an explicit provision to this effect was inadvertently omitted, would 
the Majority Leader agree to address this issue through a technical 
correction to be enacted at the earliest possible opportunity next 
session?
  Mr. LOTT. Yes. I would be happy to work with the Minority Leader and 
the Senator from Arkansas early next year to pass a technical 
correction to this legislation to achieve this goal.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on November 1 of this year, the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported S. 623, the Dakota 
Water Resources Act of 1999, to the Senate. The legislation amends 
existing law in an effort to address the water needs of North Dakota. 
The legislation, as is true of most water related legislation in the 
arid West, is not without controversy.
  Proposals to divert water from the Missouri River to meet 
agricultural, municipal and industrial, and other needs in North Dakota 
have a long history. The Missouri, like the Colorado and the Columbia, 
serves many States and a multitude of interests, including navigation. 
The Missouri is also important to the management and operation

[[Page S14988]]

of the Mississippi. Although there are sufficient resources in each of 
those Basins to meet all the water related needs if the resources were 
developed using on-stream and off-stream storage, that development has 
not occurred and for various reasons, including what I believe are 
short sighted concerns by national organizations, are not likely to 
occur in the near term. That being the case, it is not surprising that 
whenever any Basin State manages to corral all the competing interests 
in its State and even obtains support from the Administration that 
other States that could be potentially affected want to examine the 
agreement and reassure themselves that this particular solution does 
not come at their expense.
  The best way to accomplish that is to bring all the parties together 
to allow them to review their concerns and work out whatever 
arrangement will best address their needs. Our Committee did just that 
several years ago as part of the legislation to settle the water claims 
of the Colorado Ute Tribes. Once we had revised the agreement in a 
fashion that was acceptable to the Tribes, the State of Colorado, and 
the other affected water users, we then had several weeks in intense 
discussions with the other Colorado River Basin States. I want to point 
to that process, because it did result in the passage of legislation 
that was supported by all the parties and provided for the completion 
of the Dolores and Animas projects.
  I rise today to speak and offer reassurance to the North Dakota 
delegation and the Missouri delegation that the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee is committed to assisting these two delegations in 
working out their difficulties regarding S. 623, the Dakota Water 
Resources Act of 1999.
  I appreciate the hard work and good will expressed by both 
delegations over the past several weeks, but we have just run out of 
time in this session of Congress to address the concerns of all 
affected states. To continue these discussions, I have proposed to my 
colleagues that when Congress returns next year, the Energy Committee 
will hold a workshop or other forum so that the Senate can fully 
identify, discuss, and attempt to resolve the issues that have 
prevented this legislation from moving this year.
  With the assistance of my colleagues, I propose that the Energy 
Committee staff work with their staffs during the recess and that we 
convene a meeting during the first week in February to bring all the 
parties together. Hopefully, if we use the time well during the recess, 
we can identify who the technical people are who need to be involved so 
that the delegations will be able to have a constructive meeting. I 
want to note that Senator Smith, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Water and Power, who held the hearings earlier this year on the 
legislation has indicated that he is also willing to assist in this 
process.

  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the Chairman's cooperation and assistance on 
this bill and his willingness to work with me in the Energy Committee 
to bring this legislation to the floor. His commitment to convene a 
workshop to resolve outstanding issues provides the basis for moving 
forward with this legislation, which would meet the outstanding Federal 
commitment to our state.
  As the Senator from Alaska knows, North Dakota has significant water 
quality and water quantity needs that must be addressed. In many parts 
of my state, well water in rural communities resembles weak coffee or 
strong tea; it is unfit for drinking and other domestic uses. Several 
parts of my state, including the Red River Valley, do not have access 
to reliable sources of water. This bill is designed to address those 
needs and help provide clean, reliable water to families and businesses 
across North Dakota. When the Senate attempted to consider this 
legislation in recent days, objections were registered by other 
Senators who had concerns about the bill. In response, Senator Conrad 
and I have worked with those Senators to address their concerns.
  I am certain that with the Chairman's assistance and that of Senator 
Smith we will be able to resolve these concerns expeditiously.
  Mr. BOND. I too, extend my thanks to the Chairman of the Energy 
Committee for his willingness to help us on this very complex and 
difficult issue. Missouri, and other States in the Missouri River Basin 
are dependent on the flow of the Missouri River. Any legislation that 
affects this flow must be thoroughly vetted by the people in our state 
who have the knowledge and the expertise. Since this legislation came 
up at the end of the session with no time for debate on the Senate 
floor, we appreciate the opportunity the Chairman is providing us to 
bring together those people from our States who know this issue well. A 
forum with the free exchange of ideas is an excellent way to air very 
serious concerns as well as explore possible solutions that can make 
this a win-win situation for everyone. Representatives of the Missouri 
Basin States are currently in deep negotiations to discuss water flow. 
This forum should be held in the context of those negotiations.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my 
colleague from Missouri. We in Missouri are just as protective of our 
water as any other State in the Missouri River Basin, or for that 
matter, the rest of the United States. Before either of us can agree to 
any legislation that has the potential to affect our State, we must 
have the opportunity for our state experts to go over this legislation 
with a fine-tooth comb. I welcome the chance that the Senator from 
Alaska has offered and I know our state water experts will be happy to 
participate. As I have repeatedly stated, I am willing to work with my 
colleagues to try to resolve any concerns in a manner that will fully 
protect the interests of Missouri.

  Mr. CONRAD. I also appreciate the Senator's continued willingness to 
work with us. We will continue to work in good faith to develop a bill 
that can be passed by the Congress.
  I want to be absolutely clear that it is not our intent or that of 
anyone in North Dakota to harm any of our neighbors. This legislation 
significantly reduces the amount of irrigated acreage from that 
authorized by current law and completely eliminates any irrigated 
acreage from this project in the Hudson River drainage. We have 
significantly increased the levels of review by both the State 
Department to ensure compliance with the Boundary Water Treaty and by 
EPA to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act on any trans-basin 
diversion that might occur. There is no guarantee that such a diversion 
will actually occur. I also want to make it clear that we are willing 
to discuss the timing, amount, and source of any diversions to ensure 
that the legitimate needs of our neighboring Basin States are met. The 
Chairman's offer is helpful and I hope that with a full and frank 
discussion we will be able to fully resolve all concerns.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I agree with this proposal. I want to assure my 
colleagues that I will work with the Chairman to provide a forum to 
allow the North Dakota and Missouri delegations, along with adjacent 
states, to resolve their concerns.


                            c-band industry

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senator from 
Utah, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in a colloquy.
  As the Senator knows, the C-Band industry is declining and the 
conferees correctly exempted existing C-Band consumers from numerous 
provisions in this bill at my request. It is my understanding the 
conferees sought to exempt the C-Band industry from the program 
exclusivity rules that we are applying in the satellite bill. Complying 
with the program exclusivity rules would be technically and 
economically unreasonable for the C-Band industry and would only 
deprive C-Band consumers with some of their favorite programming.
  Mr. HATCH. Yes, the Senator from Alaska is correct; that was the 
intent of the conferees. And, I appreciate the Senators concerns and 
pledge to work with him to ensure that when the FCC promulgates these 
rules, the C-Band industry is exempt and C-Band consumers are 
protected.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to ask the distinguished Chairman of the 
Committee on Finance a question regarding a tax provision which 
Congress adopted this summer as part of the vetoed Taxpayer Refund and 
Relief Act of 1999.

[[Page S14989]]

  Mr. Chairman, section 1005 of that Act would have provided that the 
principles of section 482 should be used to determine whether 
transactions between tax-exempt organizations and related non-exempt 
entities give rise to unrelated business income tax. This provision was 
needed to insure that legitimate arms length transactions between these 
entities are not penalized.
  Unfortunately, it appears that this session will end without our 
having another opportunity to once again enact this vitally needed 
protection for the tax exempt community. As a result, I would like to 
ask the distinguished Chairman whether he would agree that this 
provision should be included as a high priority in the first tax 
vehicle that we adopt in the second session.
  Mr. ROTH. I can assure the distinguished Senator that the enactment 
of this provision, which has already been agreed to by both the House 
and Senate, is a high priority for our next tax bill.
  Mr. NICKLES. I want to join my distinguished colleague from Iowa in 
his remarks, and also thank our distinguished Chairman for his 
commitment to enact this provision next year. Tax exempt organizations 
provide critical services to our communities, and this provision will 
make it far easier for them to continue to perform these important 
functions.
  Mr. ROTH. I look forward to working with both the Senators from Iowa 
and Oklahoma next year to provide the relief that this provision would 
give to the many fine exempt organizations that are awaiting its 
enactment.


                           nurse anesthetists

  Mr. HARKIN. In 1994, the Health Care Financing Administration issued 
a draft regulation deferring to State law on the issue of physician 
supervision of certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNA's). This 
action was followed -in 1997 by a proposed HCFA rule deferring to State 
law on this issue. HCFA's rule has been subject to great scrutiny and 
numerous studies. Nevertheless, HCFA has to date failed to issue its 
final rule on the matter, and defer this issue to State law. Would the 
distinguished Chairman of the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, 
and Education Appropriations Subcommittee agree with this assessment?
  Mr. SPECTER. I agree with my distinguished colleague, the ranking 
subcommittee member. States should have the authority to regulate 
CRNA's in the same manner as States regulate other health care 
providers. There is a wealth of information already in existence that 
supports the view that the issue of supervision should be left to the 
States, just as HCFA has proposed.
  Mr. HARKIN. Therefore, we agree that HCFA's proposed rule has been 
extensively researched and that HCFA should move forward expeditiously.
  Mr. GORTON. I join with my distinguished colleagues to agree that 
HCFA should move forward expeditiously to resolve this issue.
  Mr. SPECTER. Absolutely, HCFA should do what it has initially 
proposed several years ago and defer to State law on this issue.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senators. I look forward to working with them 
both to resolve this matter.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. As you know, I initially objected to the movement of 
this legislation because of my concerns about the manner in which it 
preempted state law. As introduced, this bill would have nullified any 
ability of state legislatures to adopt the Uniform Electronic 
Transactions Act, (UETA), in a manner that varied from the provisions 
of the bill, or in a manner that reserved the right of states to adopt 
UETA in conformance with their consumer protection laws. When the bill 
was reported by the Commerce Committee, provisions were included to 
provide states this flexibility. Since the reporting of the bill, the 
preemption language has been amended to provide that to avoid adherence 
to the federal law, a state must adopt UETA ``in the form, or any 
substantially similar variation'' as provided to the states by the 
National Conference on Uniform State Law.
  Do you agree that notwithstanding this change, the purpose and intent 
of the preemption provisions, either pursuant to the definitions in the 
bill or otherwise, have not changed? And that the legislation, in its 
current form, is intended to permit states the flexibility of adopting 
and enacting UETA in a manner and form that ensures its conformance 
with state consumer protection laws?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes, Senator Hollings, that is certainly the intent of 
the legislation in its current form, but I would note that there must 
be a modicum of common sense involved in this approach. It is expected 
that states will pass consumer protection provisions in conjunction 
with the Electronic Transactions Act. It is important, however, that 
states not use the heading of ``consumer protection'' to enact changes 
which are inconsistent with the spirit of UETA and which threaten to 
undermine the uniformity which UETA is intended to convey. I believe 
the current language realizes these important goals.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would like to address another change to the bill 
since its reporting by the Committee. As you know, the legislation has 
been amended to incorporate language providing that the bill applies to 
the business of insurance. This language has the effect of permitting 
the validation of insurance contracts pursuant to electronic commerce. 
As you know, state insurance commissioners have expressed reservations 
about this provision. There is concern that the provision could 
potentially adversely affect the ability of states to maintain their 
full regulatory authority over these transactions. Do you agree that 
insurance companies that enter into agreements via electronic commerce 
are still required to meet all other state insurance regulatory 
requirements?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I agree wholeheartedly. The purpose of this section is 
to permit insurance companies to use electronic signatures in the same 
manner and extent as other market participants. Under no circumstances 
is the legislation intended to allow insurance companies to evade state 
insurance regulations.
  Mr. BURNS. As the sponsor of the low power television provisions 
contained in the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus 
Reform Act of 1999, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify 
one of the provisions. Specifically, I want to ensure that a qualified 
low power television (LPTV) station in New York City serving the 
Korean-American community on Channel 17 (WEBR(LP), formerly W17BM) is 
not prohibited from obtaining Class A licensing as a result of Sec. 
5008(f)(7)(C)(ii) of the Act.
  As drafted, Section 5008(7)(C)(ii) requires a qualified LPTV station 
to demonstrate the it will not interfere with land mobile radio 
services operating on Channel 16 in New York City in order to obtain 
the Class A license. However, in 1995, the Commission authorized public 
safety agencies to use Channel 16 in New York City on a conditional 
basis pursuant to a waiver of the Commission's rules. The Order 
granting that waiver specifically stated that the low power television 
station on Channel 17 would not have any responsibility to protect land 
mobile televisions on adjacent Channel 16. Do you agree with my 
understanding of Section 5008(f)(C)(ii), namely that this section is 
not intended to prevent that low power station's qualification for the 
Class A license?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes, it is also my understanding that the low power 
station on Channel 17 in New York City should not be precluded from the 
Class A license due to Section 5008(f)(7)(ii). The interference that is 
currently permitted by the Commission is intended to continue. Is this 
also your understanding Senator Moynihan?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes, it is. Otherwise, the Channel 17 LPTV station in 
New York City will be permanently deprived of a Class A license, 
notwithstanding the fact that it exemplifies exactly the type of low 
power station that should have the opportunity to achieve Class A 
status. WEBR(LP) has a demonstrated strong commitment to the local 
Korean community in New York, providing locally originated programming 
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This station's worthwhile service to the 
community has been a benefit to the public good, and this legislation 
should not thwart such service from continuing.


   the scope of compulsory licenses for television broadcast signals

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the measure before us contains some 
technical amendments to various provisions of the Copyright Act, 
including sections

[[Page S14990]]

111 and 119, which deal with the cable and satellite compulsory 
licenses, respectively. It is important to emphasize that these 
technical amendments make no change whatsoever in the key definitional 
provisions of these two compulsory licenses. Section 111(f) defines 
``cable systems,'' and section 119(d)(6) defines ``satellite carrier.'' 
Neither of these definitions is changed by the measure before us.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator from Utah yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. I am glad to yield to my friend from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator with whom I worked on this important 
legislation. Does he agree that these definitions should be interpreted 
in exactly the same way after enactment of this legislation as they 
were interpreted before its enactment?
  Mr. HATCH. The Senator is correct. In other words, if a facility 
qualified as a ``cable system'' under section 111(f) prior the 
enactment of this measure, it should also qualify after enactment. 
Conversely, if a facility did not meet the definition of ``cable 
system'' before this measure was enacted, it still would not meet that 
definition after enactment, and therefore the operations of that 
facility could not rely upon the cable compulsory license established 
by section 111. And an entity which was not entitled to claim the 
section 119 compulsory license because it did not meet the definition 
of a ``satellite carrier'' prior to enactment of the measure before us 
would be in exactly the same position after enactment, that is, it 
could not claim the satellite compulsory license under section 119.
  Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate that response.
  Mr. HATCH. I would point out that none of this is affected by the 
fact that in any earlier version of this legislation, there were 
technical amendments that would have affected these definitions. Those 
particular amendments do not appear in this legislation, and neither 
their inclusion in the earlier version nor their omission here has any 
legal significance. Would the Senate from Vermont agree with that 
statement?
  Mr. LEAHY. I would, and I would hope that both the Copyright Office 
and the courts would take the same approach. In that regard, I would 
ask my friend from Utah, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for 
his understanding of the current state of the law concerning the 
availability of these compulsory licenses to digital online 
communications services?
  Mr. HATCH. In reply to that question, I would say that certainly 
under current law, Internet and similar digital online communications 
services are not, and have never been, eligible to claim the cable or 
satellite compulsory licenses created by sections 111 or 119 of the 
Copyright Act. To my knowledge, no court, administrative agency, or 
authoritative commentator has ever held or even intimated to the 
contrary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Is the distinguished chairman aware of the views of the 
Copyright Office on this question? After all, since the Copyright 
Office administers these compulsory licenses, their views are of 
particular importance.
  Mr. HATCH. The Copyright Office studied this issue exhaustively in 
1997 and came to the same conclusion which I have just stated. In fact, 
in undertaking the study, the Copyright Office asked the fundamental 
question whether a statutory license should be created for the 
Internet. The underlying assumption of the question was that there was 
not, and never was, a statutory license applicable to the Internet. In 
response, there was little or no comment challenging that assumption. 
And I would point out that valid exercises of the Office's statutory 
authority to interpret the provisions of these compulsory licensing 
schemes are binding on the courts.
  Mr. LEAHY. I recall the Copyright Office's 1997 study, entitled ``A 
Review of the Copyright Licensing Regimes Covering Retransmission of 
Broadcast Signals,'' which concluded that no existing statutory license 
authorizes retransmission of television broadcast signals via the 
Internet or any online service. We held a hearing on that report. I 
recently received a letter from the Register of Copyrights reaffirming 
this interpretation. Indeed, in that letter, dated November 10, 1999, 
the Register stated that ``the compulsory license for secondary 
transmissions of television broadcast signals by cable systems does not 
apply to digital online communication services,'' and specifically that 
``the section 111 license does not and should not apply to Internet 
transmissions.''
  Mr. HATCH. I also received such a letter from the Register. And along 
the same lines, I have received a letter on this issue from one of 
America's most distinguished copyright scholars, Professor Arthur 
Miller of Harvard Law School. Professor Miller's interpretation of the 
scope of eligibility for these compulsory licenses under current law 
appears to be very similar to the Register's, and his letter also 
underscores the point I was making earlier, that there is no legal 
significance to the fact that this legislation omits certain technical 
amendments to the definition of ``cable system'' and ``satellite 
carrier'' that appeared in earlier versions of this legislation. I ask 
unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                        The Register of Copyrights


                              of the United States of America,

                                Washington, DC, November 10, 1999.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: I am writing to you today concerning 
     pending proposals regarding the Satellite Home Viewer Act, 
     and particularly the compulsory copyright licenses addressed 
     by that Act. As the director of the Copyright Office, the 
     agency responsible for implementing the compulsory licenses, 
     I have followed the actions of the Congress with great 
     interest.
       Let me begin by thanking you for all your hard work and 
     dedication on these issues, and by congratulating you on your 
     success in achieving a balanced compromise. Taken as a whole, 
     the Conference Report on H.R. 1554, the Intellectual Property 
     and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, represents a 
     clear step forward for the protection of intellectual 
     property. I particularly appreciate your support for 
     provisions that improve the ability of the Copyright Office 
     to administer its duties and protect copyrights and related 
     rights.
       I was greatly concerned when I heard the statements of 
     Members on the floor of the House suggesting that in the 
     final few legislative days of this session, subsection 
     1011(c) of the Conference Report should be amended or 
     removed. Section 1011(c) makes unmistakable what is already 
     true, that the compulsory license for secondary transmissions 
     of television broadcast signals by cable systems does not 
     apply to digital on-line communication services.
       It is my understanding that some services that wish to 
     retransmit television programming over the Internet have 
     asserted that they are entitled to do so pursuant to the 
     compulsory license of section 111 of Title 17. I find this 
     assertion to be without merit. The section 111 license, 
     created 23 years ago in the Copyright Act of 1976, was 
     tailored to a heavily-regulated industry subject to 
     requirements such as must-carry, programming exclusivity and 
     signal quota rules--issues that have also arisen in the 
     context of the satellite compulsory license. Congress has 
     properly concluded that the Internet should be largely free 
     of regulation, but the lack of such regulation makes the 
     Internet a poor candidate for a compulsory license that 
     depends so heavily on such restrictions. I believe that the 
     section 111 license does not and should not apply to Internet 
     transmissions.
       I also question the desirability of permitting any existing 
     or future compulsory license for Internet retransmission of 
     primary television broadcast signals. In my comprehensive 
     August 1, 1997 report to Congress, A Review of the Copyright 
     Licensing Regimes Covering Retransmission of broadcast 
     Signals, Internet transmissions were addressed in Chapter 
     VIII, entitled ``Should the Cable Compulsory License Be 
     Extended to the Internet?'' the report concluded that it was 
     inappropriate to ``besto[w] the benefits of compulsory 
     licensing on an industry so vastly different from the other 
     retransmission industries now eligible for compulsory 
     licensing under the Copyright Act.''
       The report observed that ``Copyright owners, broadcasters, 
     and cable interests alike strongly oppose . . . arguments for 
     the Internet retransmitters' eligibility for any compulsory 
     license. These commenters uniformly decry that the 
     instantaneous worldwide dissemination of broadcast signals 
     via Internet poses major issues regarding the United States 
     and international licensing of the signals, and that it would 
     be premature fur Congress to legislate a copyright compulsory 
     license to benefit Internet retransmitters at this time.'' 
     the Copyright Office believes that there would be serious 
     international implications if the United States were to 
     permit statutory licensing of Internet transmissions of 
     television broadcasts.
       Therefore I urge that no action be taken to remove or alter 
     section 1011(c) of the Conference Report. At this point, to 
     do so could be construed as a statement that digital on-line 
     communication services are eligible for

[[Page S14991]]

     the section 111 license. Such a conclusion would be 
     reinforced in light of section 1011(a)(1), which replaces the 
     term ``cable system'' in section 111 of Title 17 with the 
     term ``terrestrial system.'' In the absence of section 
     1011(c), section 1011(a)(1) might incorrectly be construed as 
     implying a broadening of the section 111 license to include 
     Internet transmissions.
       The Internet is unlike any other medium of communication 
     the world has ever known. The application of copyright law to 
     that medium is of utmost importance, and I know that you have 
     personally invested a great deal of time and energy in recent 
     years to assure that a balance of interests is reached. 
     Permitting Internet retransmission of television broadcasts 
     pursuant to the section 111 compulsory license would pose a 
     serious threat to that balance.
       Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any 
     assistance in this matter. Thank you.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Marybeth Peters,
     Register of Copyrights.
                                  ____



                                           Harvard Law School,

                                 Cambridge, MA, November 15, 1999.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Judiciary Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Judiciary Committee,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairmen Hatch and Hyde: I am writing to you to 
     express my views on a proposal to amend the cable and 
     satellite compulsory licenses in Sections 111 and 119 of the 
     Copyright Act. I have taught Copyright Law at Harvard Law 
     School, as well as Michigan and Minnesota, for over thirty-
     five years and have written extensively and lectured 
     throughout the world on this area of the law. In addition, I 
     was very active in the legislative process that led to the 
     Copyright Act of 1976 and was appointed by President Ford and 
     served as a Commissioner on the Commission for New 
     Technological Uses of Copyright Works (CONTU).
       The Conference Report on H.R. 1554, the Intellectual 
     Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, 
     included amendments to Sections 111 and 119 to state 
     explicitly that digital online communication services do not 
     fall within the definitions of ``satellite carrier'' and 
     ``terrestrial system'' (currently ``cable system'') and, 
     therefore, are not eligible for either compulsory license. I 
     understand that Congress is currently considering deleting 
     these amendments or enacting legislation that would not 
     include them. I believe that the amendments were wholly 
     unnecessary and that the deletion or exclusion of them will 
     have no effect on the law, which is absolutely clear: digital 
     online communication services are not entitled to the 
     statutory license under either Section 111 or Section 119 of 
     the Copyright Act.
       A compulsory license is an extraordinary departure from the 
     basic principles underlying copyright law and a substantial 
     and significant encroachment on a copyright owner's rights. 
     Therefore, any ambiguity in the applicability of a compulsory 
     license should be resolved against those seeking to take 
     advantage of what was intended to be a very narrow exception 
     to the copyright proprietor's exclusive rights. As the 
     Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has noted in a case 
     involving another compulsory license: the compulsory 
     license provision is a limited exception to the copyright 
     holder's exclusive right to decide who shall make use of 
     his (work). As such, it must be construed narrowly, lest 
     the exception destroy, rather than prove, the rule.
       Fame Publishing Co. v. Alabama Custom Tape, Inc., 507 F.2d 
     667, 670 (5th Cir. 1975).
       In this situation, however, there is absolutely no 
     ambiguity as to the correct construction of the cable and 
     satellite compulsory licenses. Neither the language of the 
     Copyright Act, nor any statement of Congressional intent at 
     the time of their enactment, nor any judicial interpretation 
     of Section 111 or Section 119 in any way suggests that these 
     compulsory licenses could apply to digital online 
     communication services. And, as far as I know, the 
     representatives of these services have not offered any 
     substantive argument to the contrary--with good reason. No 
     reasonable person--or court--could interpret these statutory 
     licenses to embrace these services.
       And if there was any doubt left in anyone's mind, the 
     federal agency charged with interpreting and implementing 
     these statutory licenses, the United States Copyright Office, 
     has addressed this issue directly: retransmitting broadcast 
     signals by way of the Internet is clearly outside the scope 
     of the current compulsory licenses. In fact, the Copyright 
     Office recommended in 1997 that Congress not even create a 
     new compulsory license, concluding that it would be 
     ``inappropriate for Congress to grant Internet retransmitters 
     the benefits of compulsory licensing.'' See U.S. Copyright 
     Office, A Review of the Copyright Licensing Regimes Covering 
     Retransmission of Broadcast Signals (August 1, 1997), at 99 
     and Executive Summary at xiii.
       My work in the field of copyright over the past decades, 
     especially my extensive activities in connection with the 
     development of the legislation that became the Copyright Act 
     of 1976, leads me to agree with the Office's conclusions that 
     it would be far too premature to extend a compulsory license 
     to the Internet. That conclusion seems sound given the 
     enormous differences between the Internet and the industries 
     embraced by the existing licensing provisions and the need to 
     engage in extensive research and analysis regarding the 
     potentially enormous implications of digital communications. 
     We simply do not know enough to legislate effectively at this 
     point. Doing so at this time--especially without hearing from 
     numerous affected interests--would create a risk of upsetting 
     the delicate balance between the rights of copyright 
     proprietors and the interests of others.
       Thus, in any judicial action that might materialize by or 
     against the providers of digital online communication 
     services, the court would be bound by the Copyright Office's 
     interpretation of the statutory licenses. See Cablevision 
     Systems Development Co. v. Motion Picture Association of 
     America, Inc., 836 F.2d 599, 609-610 (D.C. Cir. 1988) 
     (deferring to the Copyright Office's interpretation of 
     Section 111, noting Congress' grant of statutory authority to 
     the Copyright Office to interpret the Copyrights Act, and the 
     Supreme Court's indication that it also would defer to the 
     Copyright Office's interpretation of the Copyright Act), 
     Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Assoc v. Oman, 17 
     F.3d 344, 345 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding that valid exercises 
     of the Copyright Office's statutory authority to interpret 
     the provisions of the compulsory licensing scheme are binding 
     on the court).
       In summary, based on the unmistakable fact that digital 
     online communication services are ineligible for the cable 
     and satellite compulsory licenses and the identical, 
     unequivocal interpretation by the Copyright Office, 
     amendments to the existing statute reiterating this legal 
     truth are unnecessary. Consequently, the status quo with 
     respect to who is eligible for the statutory licenses will 
     remain undisturbed whether Congress deletes these amendments 
     from the pending legislation or excludes them from subsequent 
     legislation.
           Respectfully yours,
                                                 Arthur R. Miller,
                                   Bruce Bromley Professor of Law.

  Mr. LEAHY. I thank my colleague from Utah for his responses. I 
believe this colloquy should help to clarify that this legislation 
leaves these crucial definitions unchanged, and also to clarify what is 
the current state of the law, which this legislation does not disturb.
  Mr. HATCH. I think the Senator from Vermont. And I would clarify one 
other point relating to a minor modification we made to the definition 
of ``unserved household'' in the distant signal satellite statutory 
license found in section 119 of Title 17 of the United States Code. The 
conferees decided to add the word ``stationary'' to the phrase 
``conventional outdoor rooftop receiving antenna'' in Section 
119(d)(10) of the Copyright Act. As the Chairman of the Conference 
Committee and of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction 
over copyright matters, I should make clear that this change should not 
require any alteration in the methods used by the courts to enforce the 
``unserved household'' limitation of Section 119. The new language 
states only that the antenna is to be ``stationary''; it does not state 
that the antenna is to be misoriented (i.e., pointed away from the 
station in question). Any interpretation that assumed misorientation 
would be inconsistent with the basic premise of the definition of 
``unserved household,'' which defines that term in relation to an 
individual TV station rather than to all network affiliates in a 
market--and speaks to whether a household ``cannot'' receive a Grade B 
intensity signal from a particular station. If a household can receive 
a signal of Grade B intensity with a properly oriented stationary 
conventional antenna, it is not ``unserved'' within the meaning of 
Section 119. In addition, if station towers are located in different 
directions, conventional over-the-air antennas can be designed so as to 
point towards the different towers without requiring the antenna to be 
moved. And reading the definition of ``unserved household'' to assume 
misoriented antennas would mean that the ``unserved household'' 
limitation had no fixed meaning, since there are countless different 
ways in which an antenna can be misoriented, but only one way to be 
correctly oriented, as the Commission's rules make clear.
  With that clarification, I yield the floor.


                       patent reform legislation

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member 
for their tireless efforts on patent reform. I strongly support passage 
of S. 1798, which is included in this omnibus measure, because so many 
companies in California and across the nation depend on a strong and 
well-functioning patent system.

[[Page S14992]]

  While S. 1798 will provide important protection for inventors and 
innovators and help reduce needless patent litigation, I do have some 
concerns regarding the compromise reached regarding the reexamination 
procedure set forth in Title VI. As I understand it, this section will 
reduce the burden of patent cases in our federal courts. However, we 
need to be sure that the procedure fully and fairly protects the rights 
of all parties, and some concerns about this process have been brought 
to my attention over the last few weeks.
  Out of deference to the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the 
Judiciary Committee, and being sensitive to the compromise that the 
House reached, I did not seek amendments to this title of the bill. 
Furthermore, I feel strongly that the bill should move forward without 
further delay, so I support its final passage. This does not mean, 
however, that I believe we should cease to be concerned about how the 
new system will function. Accordingly, I would like to receive 
assurances from Chairman Hatch that we will keep a close eye on how 
well this new reexamination system works. In particular, I would like 
to request that the Committee obtain an interim report from the Patent 
and Trademark Office under the authority specified in section 606 of S. 
1798 not later than 18 months after this bill becomes effective. I 
would also invite Chairman Hatch to hold a hearing to consider this 
information, and to obtain views from people who both supported and 
opposed this compromise system.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator from California for her remarks and 
appreciate her support for this important legislation. I agree that 
Congress must closely monitor the effectiveness and fairness of the new 
reexamination procedure. I also believe it would be very useful to 
obtain the interim report she mentioned in a timely fashion and look 
forward to continuing to work with her on this issue.


                       cpb list sharing provision

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage with you in a 
colloquy concerning the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) list-
sharing prohibition in the Intellectual Property and Communications 
Reform Act.
  Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The bill amends Section 396(h) of the Communications 
Act to prevent public broadcasting entities that receive federal funds 
from renting or exchanging lists with political candidates, parties or 
committees.
  Mr. Chairman, am I correct in reading this language as providing that 
the list-sharing restriction only applies to the CPB and not any other 
organizations?
  Mr. HATCH. That is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, in my view, CPB is a unique entity and 
its unique nature may be used by supporters of this provision to 
justify the restrictions on list sharing. CPB is unique because it is 
created, controlled and funded by the government with a legal 
obligation to be balanced and objective.
  Many non-profit organizations rely upon exchanges of lists with 
political organizations as a way to attract new members to their 
organizations to support their charitable works. A number of mainstream 
non-profit organizations, such as the Disabled Veterans of America, 
have expressed concern that this CPB provision may set a precedent for 
future restrictions on list sharing by other non-profit organizations. 
It is my understanding, however, that this list sharing restriction is 
not a precedent for similar restrictions on other non-profits that are 
not: (1) created by the federal government; (2) controlled by the 
federal government; (3) funded by the federal government; and (4) 
legally required to be balanced and objective. Thus, I do not think 
this provision relating to CPB is a precedent for imposing such 
restrictions on other non-profits. Does the Chairman agree with my 
assessment?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes, the Senator's assessment is correct. The conferees 
included the CPB list-sharing language in the bill because of concerns 
related to CPB's unique status. This provision should in no way be 
interpreted as precedent for restrictions on list sharing by other non-
profit organizations that may receive federal funds.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question of the 
senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, in his capacity as chair of 
the full Committee on Appropriations, and the senior senator from 
Washington, Mr. Gorton, who is chair of the Interior Subcommittee, 
regarding clarification of a vital issue facing the State of Alaska.
  The Year 2000 will be the 20th anniversary of the passage of the 
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. ANILCA is the 
most far-reaching piece of legislation ever passed--in the history of 
the United States--in terms of creating massive set-asides for 
conservation purposes.
  Last year, in the appropriations conference report, Congress passed 
specific language requiring that the federal managers chosen from 
around the United States to oversee the implementation of ANILCA's 
Conservation Units receive adequate, in-depth training on its many 
components and ramifications. The language read as follows:

       The Committees agree that the Secretary of the Interior and 
     the Secretary of Agriculture should provide comprehensive 
     training to land managers on the history and provisions of 
     statutes affecting land and natural resource management in 
     Alaska, including but not limited to Revised Statute 2477, 
     the Act of May 17, 1906 (34 Stat. 197), the Alaska Statehood 
     Act, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the White Act, the 
     Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Alaska 
     Native Claims Settlement Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens 
     Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

  When this language passed it was our hope that this training would 
also be provided to those employees who manage programs in Alaska and 
to employees whose jobs entail knowledge of one or more of the laws 
described above.
  I want to further clarify that it is our hope that the Secretary of 
the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture would enter into an 
agreement with, and provide funding to, Alaska Pacific University, in 
conjunction with University of Washington School of Law and 
Northwestern School of Law, Lewis and Clark College, to develop and 
conduct training.
  I feel training in these laws very specific to Alaska is badly 
needed, as most federal employees arriving in the state know little 
about Arctic and sub-Arctic environments. Many people coming to Alaska 
imagine incorrectly that the statute governing Alaska's federal Parks 
and Refuges is identical to those they have worked with in the South 
49. This, of course, is  far from the truth.

  Because of the dimensions of ANILCA's reclassification of Alaska's 
lands, encompassing more than 104 million acres, an area larger that 
the State of California, the Congress rightfully tailored the law with 
a series of Alaska-specific provisions, unfamiliar to other states. The 
purpose of these provisions was clearly intended to ensure that these 
land designations protect the natural glories of Alaska's most 
beautiful regions but neither destroy the way of life of Alaska's 
Native people nor violate the promises made to all Alaskans in the 
Compact made between our people and the U.S. Government in the Alaska 
Statehood Bill.
  During the August recess, I held hearings in Alaska to discover how 
the federal managers of the federal Conservation Units in Alaska are 
doing in carrying out and living by the provisions required in the law. 
Sadly, I must report a long litany of abuses being suffered by Alaskans 
as individuals, as outdoor sports participants, as business owners, and 
as a community due to ignorance by federal managers. Much of this 
ignorance is through honest misunderstanding of the Statute. I, 
therefore, ask my honorable colleagues to respond to my query about the 
status of the language passed last year that would fill this void.
  I also want to call to your attention that Alaska Pacific 
University's Institute of the North has followed up on that language, 
and is inaugurating a semester course this coming semester addressing 
all of these issues on the 20th anniversary of ANILCA. All 
stakeholders--from conservationists to Native peoples to resource 
harvesters--will be part of the discussions and learning process. The 
University is working with Lewis and Clark's Northwestern School of Law 
to develop the needed legal research in this area. And while the 
University was invited to participate at its own expense in the one-day 
ANILCA training held here in Washington this spring, I believe the 
Interior Department and the Department of Agriculture have done no more 
than that to fulfill Congressional intent.

[[Page S14993]]

  I believe a good curriculum can be developed at a cost of some 
$300,000, a small investment for an issue this important. The existing 
course can be re-formatted in a thorough but intensive week-long 
seminar and delivered specifically for the federal employees who 
constantly are rotated into Alaska to serve on the front line of this 
pioneering experiment in conservation and sustainable development.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague, the Chairman 
of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Senator from 
Alaska and the Senator from Washington will remember that I asked that 
the language in the conference report be inserted last year. I, too, am 
concerned that no action has taken place. It is my intent, as chairman 
of this committee, that the training called for in last year's 
conference report take place, and that the program led by Alaska 
Pacific University, in conjunction with two of the closest law schools 
in Washington and Oregon, take place. There are sufficient funds in the 
training budgets of the several Interior agencies to make this happen, 
and I believe it should happen in conjunction with the outside 
resources who are developing this curriculum. While I participated in 
the program held in Washington, DC, on this issue, I would hope that a 
greater effort is put forth in the future.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I concur with the Alaska Senator's intent, 
and I believe the Interior and Agriculture budgets are sufficient to 
allow the Department to contract with these schools to provide the 
training we called for. Each of these Alaska laws referred to in the 
report language last year is important, is unique, and needs 
appropriate training for our managers to ensure that Congressional 
intent is followed.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President, and through the chair, thank 
you to my colleagues. We have considered making this a legal 
requirement in an amendment to law, but I believe this year--in the 
20th anniversary of ANILCA--we should see that the training gets 
started. We will be following it closely in the year to come, and we 
appreciate the comments provided by the committee chairman and the 
manager of the bill.


            blm closure of twin falls airtanker reload base

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to discuss with the Chairman 
of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee a problem that has come up 
in Twin Falls in my State of Idaho. In July 1998, the Bureau of Land 
Management's state office closed the tanker resupply base at the Twin 
Falls airport, after an internal inspection indicated unsafe 
conditions. At the time of that closing, the BLM Shoshone and state BLM 
offices expressed their interest in re-opening the facility as soon as 
possible. Over the following months, discussions between BLM and local 
officials included mention of re-opening as early as during fiscal year 
2000.
  Then, approval and timing of the project appeared to enter a twilight 
zone somewhere between south Idaho and Washington, DC. In February of 
this year, a project data sheet was produced showing a request for FY 
2001. Local officials in Twin Falls were told that this delay was the 
result of no prioritization decision being made at the national level, 
and that FY 2001 was going to be the earliest year for which the 
request could be made. Subsequently, local officials were told both, 
that no final decisions had been made, and that the project had slipped 
to a lower priority and would be delayed at least until FY 2002.
  Prompt replacement of this airtanker reload base is important for 
several reasons. It is the only such base within 100 miles of most of 
the Idaho-Nevada border and is therefore situated to provide the 
fastest possible response in the area during the fire season. Because 
of the location of the airport and its clear departure paths, it offers 
fast, safe turnaround times. Many customers in addition to BLM need a 
base in this area. If the base is not re-opened soon, it will hurt 
airport operations and hurt the local economy.
  I am not suggesting to the Chairman that anyone is acting 
inappropriately. But I do think it is important for us to look into the 
matter, find out more about the decisionmaking process and what it is 
producing, consider what the fairest, most prompt outcome should be, 
and engage with BLM to arrive at that solution.
  Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this to the 
Subcommittee's attention. I certainly can understand the Senator's 
concern with the closure of this base and his constituents' frustration 
with seemingly inexplicable delays in making progress toward a re-
opening. I look forward to working with the Senator and with BLM, to 
look into this matter and arrive at the best, earliest possible 
resolution.


                      desulfurization (bds) grant

  Mr. STEVENS. The FY 2000 Interior Appropriations conference report 
provides a grant to a refinery in Alaska for a pilot project to 
demonstrate the effectiveness of diesel biocatalytic desulfurization 
technology, or BDS for short. This technology holds great promise for 
helping our petroleum refining industry reduce the sulfur content of 
diesel fuel in order to meet new EPA regulations. Would the Chairman of 
the Subcommittee clarify a couple of points about this grant?
  Mr. GORTON. Certainly.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding that the Chairman intends for 
this grant to be made available only to a refinery owned by a small 
business in Alaska. Is that correct?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. I understand that the BDS 
technology is ideally suited to small refineries. Therefore, I believe 
that the grant should be made available only to a refinery that meets 
the Small Business Administration's definition of small; that is, less 
than 75,000 barrels per day capacity of petroleum-based inputs and less 
than 1,500 employees.
  Mr. STEVENS. Why is the BDS technology better suited to small 
refineries?
  Mr. GORTON. It has to do with the nature of the technology itself. As 
the Senator may know, diesel engine manufacturers currently are in the 
process of developing new technologies with the potential to radically 
reduce harmful diesel emissions, but which will require fuel with very 
low sulfur content in order to work effectively. To reduce the 
environmental impact of diesel emissions, the EPA is considering new 
regulations which would require significant reductions in the sulfur 
content of diesel fuel.
  Large-scale, fully-integrated refineries are capable of cost-
effectively producing low-sulfur diesel fuel using the traditional 
technology for removing sulfur from gasoline and diesel fuel, called 
hydrodesulfurization, or HDS. However, small refineries do not have 
that capability. HDS is a highly complex, energy intensive, and 
expensive process. As a result, it is not well-suited to small 
refineries, which generally are much more simply configured and produce 
a smaller variety and quantity of refined products than large 
refineries, and therefore cannot justify the expense of building and 
operating HDS units.
  BDS, on the other hand, is a simple, efficient, and low cost 
technology which uses much less energy than the traditional HDS 
technology. A BDS unit is likely to cost 50% less to construct and 
operate than a traditional HDS unit. For these reasons, BDS technology 
is particularly well-suited to small refineries and holds great promise 
as a cost-effective alternative for producing low-sulfur diesel fuel. 
Because small refineries will be the principal users of the BDS 
technology if it works like we hope it will, it makes sense to first 
try it out at a small refinery. Therefore, we believe that the grant 
for a demonstration project should be directed to a small refinery.
  Mr. STEVENS. Thank you.
  Mr. CRAIG. Senator Gorton, I have in my hand a copy of an August 27 
order from Judge William Dwyer instructing the parties in a lawsuit 
over timber sales in the Pacific Northwest to negotiate a settlement 
regarding a requirement to survey for 77 species of mollusks, lichens, 
bryophytes, salamanders and slugs prior to conducting ground disturbing 
activities. This lawsuit has held up over one quarter of a billion 
board feet of federal timber sales.
  Let me read a single sentence from the Judge's order:

       Negotiations should now be resumed, should include the 
     defendant-interveners, and should explore short-term 
     solutions that would reduce the impact of injunctive relief

[[Page S14994]]

     on logging contractors and their employees while complying 
     with the Northwest Forest Plan.

  I have been advised by media accounts that the settlement announced, 
with great fanfare, by Under Secretary Jim Lyons yesterday did not 
involve the ``defendant-interveners.'' Indeed, in his public comments 
Mr. Lyons indicates that, the defendant-interveners were excluded from 
discussions. Defendant-interveners have been unsuccessful in even 
securing basic information that the government currently has available 
about affected sales. Furthermore, the settlement did not ``reduce the 
impact of injunctive relief on logging contractors and their 
employees'' at all. Instead, it actually expanded the injunction by 
adding four more sales to the dozens that are already either enjoined 
by the Court, or not awarded by a decision of the Administration. Mr. 
Lyons gave the environmental plaintiffs more than what Judge Dwyer 
ordered in his original decision simply to settle the case and claim 
that his Northwest Forest Plan was ``back on track.'' This seems more 
like a capitulation, rather than a settlement.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. Additionally, I also understand 
that the day before this ``deal'' was announced, Judge Dwyer held a 
status conference with all the parties, including the defendant-
interveners. The government attorneys told him that no agreement had 
been reached, and that the next mediation session was to occur on 
December 2. The Judge then set December 3 for the next status 
conference. Apparently, this Administration has as much trouble 
speaking with any probity to the Judicial Branch as they have recently 
with the Congress. It appears that the Judge's admonition to include 
the ``defendant-interveners'' in the discussions was ignored.
  Mr. CRAIG. Senator, I also understand that Section 334 of the 
Interior Appropriations Bill was dropped, in part, because of concerns 
by the Administration that the measure would disrupt the negotiations 
that were underway, and could prevent the release of any of the 
enjoined timber sales. But, the settlement announced yesterday will not 
release any of the enjoined sales.
  To add insult to injury, Mr. Lyons is nevertheless claiming that the 
settlement he announced yesterday will, indeed, allow the sales to go 
forward. I understand that nothing could be further from the truth. 
These sales are still on hold while the Forest Service tries to figure 
out how to search for slugs, slime and salamanders. Most importantly, 
the Administration is not willing to commit to a time-frame to complete 
these surveys. I believe this is a wrong that must be corrected.
  Mr. GORTON. I concur with the observations of my colleague from 
Idaho. The sales in question have not been made available to operate. 
They are still subject to the impossible survey requirements that 
caused the injunction to begin with. That is why I would urge the 
Administration in the strongest terms to return to the negotiating 
table with the defendant-interveners and address their concerns.
  Specifically, there should be an agreed-upon time-frame and a date 
certain for the completion of the agreed-upon survey requirements. 
Failure to conduct a good-faith effort to complete the settlement 
process in the fashion ordered by the Judge should be grounds for 
withholding final approval of the agreement.
  Mr. CRAIG. I agree. It seems to me that, based upon the 
Administration's performance, Congress should reinstate Section 334 or 
some similar measure in the FY2000 Supplemental Appropriations bill and 
direct the Administration to release these sales immediately. The 
Administration's present course will keep this conflict alive 
interminably, and expose the taxpayers to the liability of damage 
claims from contract holders. Moreover, this consistent record of 
deceit and chicanery from the Administration must stop. We made a good 
faith effort to respond to the Administration's concerns over Section 
334 based, in part, on its promise to negotiate a fair settlement of 
this legal dispute. Not only did they not do that, they now have the 
audacity to claim publicly that they did, and spin their announcement 
in the most shameful of ways. If truth is the coin of the realm, Mr. 
Lyons and his cohorts are hopelessly bankrupt.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I would like to ask the Chairman of the 
Interior Appropriations subcommittee to clarify some matters concerning 
the President's American Heritage Rivers initiative that concerns the 
Interior and related agencies portion of the appropriations act. 
Senator Gorton, is it your understanding that there is nothing in this 
bill that authorizes the American Heritage Rivers initiative?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, I would like to clarify that matter. There is no 
language whatsoever in the Interior portion that provides an 
authorization for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Thank you Mr. Chairman. In addition, is 
it true that there is no separate appropriation for the American 
Heritage Rivers initiative in the Interior portion of the bill?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, it is true that there is no appropriation for the 
American Heritage Rivers initiative in the appropriations act. In fact, 
the bill includes in Title three a provision that clearly prohibits the 
transfer of any funds from this act to the Council on Environmental 
Quality (CEQ) for purposes related to the American Heritage Rivers 
initiative.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Thank you Mr. Chairman. In addition, can 
you comment on some guidance that you have given the Forest Service in 
your statement to the managers?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, certainly. The statement of the managers provides a 
limitation on spending for the Forest Service for purposes related to 
designated American Heritage Rivers. This is not an appropriation, but 
it provides a maximum that may be spent from funds appropriated for 
other purposes on any efforts that are consistent with existing 
authorized programs. I would also like to point out that the Interior 
subcommittee has questioned this initiative previously. The Committee 
reports accompanying the FY 1999 bill clearly stated that efforts on 
this initiative by agencies covered by the Interior bill must complete 
with, or be normal part of, the authorized program of work of the 
agency.


                intellectual property and communications

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the revised 
``Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999'' 
(H.R. 1554). As a Member of the Judiciary Committee, I am particularly 
pleased that this legislation includes as Title IV, the ``American 
Inventors Protection Act of 1999.'' This important patent reform 
measure includes a series of initiatives intended to protect rights of 
inventors, enhance patent protections and reduce patent litigation.
  Perhaps most importantly, subtitle C of title IV contains the so-
called ``First Inventor Defense.'' This defense provides a first 
inventor (or ``prior user'') with a defense in patent infringement 
lawsuits, whenever an inventor of a business method (i.e., a practice 
process or system) uses the invention but does not patent it. 
Currently, patent law does not provide original inventors with any 
protections when a subsequent user, who patents the method at a later 
date, files a lawsuit for infringement against the real creator of the 
invention.
  The first inventor defense will provide the financial services 
industry with important, needed protections in the face of the 
uncertainty presented by the Federal Circuit's decision in the State 
Street case. State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Signature Financial 
Group, Inc. 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In State Street, the Court 
did away with the so-called ``business methods'' exception to statutory 
patentable subject matter. Consequently, this decision has raised 
questions about what types of business methods may now be eligible for 
patent protection. In the financial services sector, this has prompted 
serious legal and practical concerns. It has created doubt regarding 
whether or not particular business methods used by this industry--
including processes, practices, and systems--might now suddenly become 
subject to new claims under the patent law. In terms of every day 
business practice, these types of activities were considered to be 
protected as trade secrets and were not viewed as patentable material.
  Mr. President, the first inventor defense strikes a fair balance 
between patent law and trade secret law. Specifically, this provision 
creates a defense for inventors who (1) acting in

[[Page S14995]]

good faith have reduced the subject matter to practice in the United 
States at least one year prior to the patent filing date (``effective 
filing date'') of another (typically later) inventor; and (2) 
commercially used the subject matter in the United States before the 
filing date of the patent. Commercial use does not require that the 
particular invention be made known to the public or be used in the 
public marketplace--it includes wholly internal commercial uses as 
well.
  As used in this legislation, the term ``method'' is intended to be 
construed broadly. The term ``method'' is defined as meaning ``a method 
of doing or conducting business.'' thus, ``method'' includes any 
internal method of doing business, a method used in the course of doing 
or conducting business, or a method for conducting business in the 
public marketplace. It includes a practice, process, activity, or 
system that is used in the design, formulation, testing, or manufacture 
of any product or service. The defense will be applicable against 
method claims, as well as the claims involving machines or articles the 
manufacturer used to practice such methods (i.e., apparatus claims). 
New technologies are being developed every day, which include 
technology that employs both methods of doing business and physical 
apparatus designed to carry out a method of doing business. The first 
inventor defense is intended to protect both method claims and 
apparatus claims.
  When viewed specifically from the standpoint of the financial 
services industry, the term ``method'' includes financial instruments, 
financial products, financial transactions, the ordering of financial 
information, and any system or process that transmits or transforms 
information with respect to investments or other types of financial 
transactions. In this context, it is important to point out the 
beneficial effects that such methods have brought to our society. These 
include the encouragement of home ownership, the broadened availability 
of capital for small businesses, and the development of a variety of 
pension and investment opportunities for millions of Americans.
  As the joint explanatory statement of the Conference Committee on 
H.R. 1554 notes, the provision ``focuses on methods for doing and 
conducting business, including methods used in connection with internal 
commercial operations as well as those used in connection with the sale 
or transfer of useful end results--whether in the form of physical 
products, or in the form of services, or in the form of some other 
useful results; for example, results produced through the manipulation 
of data or other inputs to produce a useful result.'' H. Rept. 106-464 
p. 122.
  The language of the provision states that the defense is not 
available if the person has actually abandoned commercial use of the 
subject matter. As used in the legislation, abandonment refers to the 
cessation of use with no intent to resume. Intervals of non-use between 
such periodic or cyclical activities such as seasonable factors or 
reasonable intervals between contracts, however, should not be 
considered to be abandonment.
  As noted earlier, Mr. President, in the wake of State Street, 
thousands of methods and processes that have been and are used 
internally are now subject to the possibility of being claimed as 
patented inventions. Previously, the businesses that developed and used 
such methods and processes thought that secrecy was the only protection 
available. As the conference report on H.R. 1554 states: ``(U)nder 
established law, any of these inventions which have been in commercial 
use--public or secret--for more than one year cannot now be the subject 
of a valid U.S. patent.'' H. Rept. 106-464, p. 122.
  Mr. President, patent law should encourage innovation, not create 
barriers to the development of innovative financial products, credit 
vehicles, and e-commerce generally. The patent law was never intended 
to prevent people from doing what they are already doing. While I am 
very pleased that the first inventors defense is included in H.R. 1554, 
it should be viewed as just the first step in defining the appropriate 
limits and boundaries of the State Street decision. This legal defense 
will provide important protections for companies against unfair and 
unjustified patent infringement actions. But, at the same time, I 
believe that it is time for Congress to take a closer look at the 
potentially broad and, perhaps, adverse consequences of the State 
Street decision. I would hope that beginning early next year that the 
Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the State Street issue, so 
that Senators can carefully evaluate its economic and competitive 
consequences.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. My college is correct. The State Street decision may 
have unintended consequences for the financial services community. By 
explicitly holding that business methods are patentable, financial 
service companies are finding that the techniques and ideas, that were 
in wide use, are being patented by others.
  The Prior Inventor Defense of H.R. 1554 is an important step toward 
protecting the financial services industry. By protecting early 
developers and users of a business method, the defense allows U.S. 
companies to commit resources to the commercialization of their 
inventions with confidence that a subsequent patent holder will prevail 
in a patent-infringement suit. Without this defense, financial services 
companies face unfair patent-infringement suits over the use of 
techniques and ideas (methods) they developed and have used for years.
  While I support the Prior Inventor Defense, as a member of the 
Judiciary Committee, I hope that we will revisit this issue next year. 
More must be done to address the boundaries of the State Street 
decision with the realities of the constantly changing and developing 
financial services industry.
  I look forward to working with Senator Schumer and my colleagues on 
the committee on this important issue.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to support an extremely 
important provision in the budget agreement. A provision which will 
mean the difference for many dairy farmers around the country on 
whether they will stay in business or not.
  The dairy compromise that is included in the budget agreement will 
help bring stability to the price dairy farmers around the country 
receive for their product--as well as protect consumers and processors 
by helping to maintain a fresh local supply of milk.
  The agreement extends the very successful Northeast Dairy Compact and 
overturns Secretary Glickman's flawed pricing rule, saving dairy 
farmers around the country millions of dollars in lost income.
  Take one look at this chart and you will know why the dairy 
compromise in the budget agreement is so important to the survival of 
this country's dairy farmers.
  Why, because every farmer in every state in the red would lose money 
out of their pockets if Secretary Glickman's flawed pricing rule known 
as option 1-B were to be put in place. The dairy compromise corrects 
this and creates a pricing formula that is fair for both farmers and 
consumers.
  For three years the farmers in New England have had a program that 
works. It's called the Northeast Dairy Compact. Because the Dairy 
Compact pilot program has worked so well--no less than twenty-five 
states have approved Compacts and are now asking Congress for approval.
  Today, I am so pleased two of the people responsible for creating the 
idea of the dairy compact are here in Washington today. Bobby Starr and 
Dan Smith are two Vermonters that over 10 years ago put their heads 
together in an effort to help protect the Vermont way of life.
  It was my hope and the hope of the majority of the Senate that we 
could have expanded the compacts into other regions so other states 
could benefit from having a means of stabilizing prices for both their 
farmers and consumers.
  Unfortunately, this time we were not able to expand the dairy compact 
into other regions. However, a great deal of progress has been made as 
more and more states are seeing the benefits of protecting their dairy 
farmers and rural economies through the use of Interstate Compacts.
  Given the broad support for compacts among the states, we all know 
that the issue of regional pricing is one that will continue to be 
debated. I am pleased with the tremendous progress the Southern states 
and other Northeastern states have made to move their compacts forward.

[[Page S14996]]

  While the debate continues, this reasonable compromise allows the 
Northeast Compact to continue as the pilot project for the concept of 
regional pricing
  The Northeast Dairy Compact has given farmers and consumers hope. The 
Compact, which was authorized by the 1996 farm bill as a three-year 
pilot program, has been extremely successful.
  The Compact has been studied, audited, and sued but has always come 
through with a clean bill of health. Because of the success of the 
Compact it has served as a model for the entire country.
  Mr. President, I am of course aware that some of my colleagues oppose 
our efforts to bring fairness to our states and farmers by continuation 
of the Dairy Compact pilot project.
  Also, unfortunately, Congress has been bombarded with misinformation 
from an army of lobbyists representing the national milk processors, 
led by the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the Milk 
Industry Foundation. These two groups, backed by the likes of Philip 
Morris, have funded several front groups to lobby against this 
compromise.
  Their handy work has been seen recently in misinformed newspaper 
editorials, deceiving advertisements and uninformed television ads. 
Yesterday Senator Leahy and I came to the floor to correct the 
misinformation contained in the Wall Street Journal Editorial.
  Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to set the 
record straight about the operation of the Northeast Compact. It is 
crucial that Congress understand the issues presented by dairy compacts 
on the merits, rather than based on misinformation.
  When properly armed with the facts, I believe you will conclude that 
the Northeast Dairy Compact has already proven to be a successful 
experiment and that the other states which have now adopted dairy 
compacts should in the future be given the opportunity to determine 
whether dairy compacts will in fact work for them as well.
  Contrary to the claims of the opposition, regional compact regulation 
remain open to the interstate commerce of all producer milk and 
processor milk products, from whatever source. Compacts establish 
neither ``cartels'', ``tariffs'' nor ``barriers to trade'' and are not 
``economic protectionism.''
  According to the opponents characterizations, dairy compacts somehow 
establish a ``wall'' around the regions subject to compact regulation, 
and thereby prohibit competition from milk produced and processed from 
outside the regions.
  These are entirely misleading characterizations.
  It is really quite simple and straightforward: All fluid, or beverage 
milk sold in a compact region is subject to uniform regulation, 
regardless of its source within or outside the compact region.
  This means that all farmers, including farmers from the Upper 
Midwest, providing milk for beverage sale in the region, receive the 
same pay prices without discrimination. It can thus be seen that there 
is no economic protectionism or the erection of barriers to trade.
  Except for uniform regulation, the market remains open to all, and 
the benefits of the regulations are provided without discrimination to 
all participating in the market, including those who participate in the 
market from beyond the territorial boundaries of the region.
  Next, I would like to address the actual and potential impact of 
dairy compacts on consumer prices. In short, opposition claims about 
the actual and possible impact of dairy compacts on consumers, 
including low income consumers, are unfounded and grossly distorted.
  Over the years, while farm milk prices have fluctuated wildly, 
remaining constant overall during the last ten years, consumers prices 
have risen sharply.
  The explanation for this is apparently that variations in store 
prices do not mirror the wild fluctuations in farm prices.
  In other words, when farm prices go up, the store prices go up, but 
when the farm prices recede, the store prices do not come back down as 
quickly or at the same rate. Hence, and quite logically, if you take 
away the fluctuations in farm prices, you take away the catalyst for 
unwarranted increases in store prices.
  When the 1996 Farm Bill granted consent to the Northeast Dairy 
Compact as a pilot program, Congress gave the six New England states 
the right under the compact clause of the Constitution to join together 
to help regulate the price paid to farmers for fluid milk in the New 
England region.
  The six New England states realized that in order to maintain a 
viable agriculture infrastructure and an adequate supply of milk for 
the consumers they needed to work together.
  When the compact passed as part of the 1996 Farm Bill, the opponents 
were so sure the compact would not operate as its supporters had 
promised, they asked the Office of Management of Budget to conduct a 
study on the economic effects of the Northeast Dairy Compact.
  The opponents of the dairy compact intended for the OMB study to 
discredit the dairy compact. The study did just the opposite. Instead, 
the OMB study proved just what we had thought--that the dairy compact 
works and it works well.
  The OMB studied the economic effects of the Northeast Dairy Compact 
and especially its effects on the federal food and nutrition programs. 
The study also examined the impacts of milk prices at various levels on 
utilization and shipment of milk, and on farm income both within and 
outside the Compact region.
  Here's what the study concluded:
  The New England retail milk prices were $.05 cents per gallon lower 
on average then retail milk prices nationally following the first six 
months of operation of the Northeast Dairy Compact.
  The compact over-order payments made in New England through the 
Compact Commission have had little impact on the price consumers pay as 
a result of the compact. Consumers, who are well represented on the 
Compact Commission, are very pleased with how the Dairy Compact has 
operated.
  The Northeast Dairy Compact has not added any costs to federal 
nutrition programs, such as the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and 
the school lunch and breakfast program, due to compensation procedures 
implemented by the New England Compact Commission. A program that helps 
protect farmers and consumers with no cost to the federal government.
  The OMB study found that the Dairy Compact was economically 
beneficial to dairy producers. It increased their income from the milk 
sales about six percent.
  The study concluded that the retail prices in New England were lower 
than the national average and it increased the income of dairy 
producers. No wonder twenty-five states are interested in having 
compacts in their states. And it's no wonder why governors, state 
legislatures, consumers and farmers alike support the continuation of 
the Northeast dairy compact.
  Also, the OMB study concluded that there were no adverse affects for 
dairy farmers outside the Compact region and the study noted that some 
dairy producers outside the region actually received increased 
financial benefits through the sale of their milk into New England.
  The OMB study helped Congress understand just how well the compact 
works. The opponents of the compact did not get what they had hoped 
for--instead we all have benefitted, both opponents and proponents of 
the compact, with the facts.
  Despite what some of my colleagues have said, the Northeast Dairy 
Compact is working as it was intended to.
  Instead of trying to destroy an initiative that works to help dairy 
farmers with no cost to the federal government, I urge my colleagues 
from the Upper Midwest to respect the states' interest and initiative 
to help protect their farmers and encourage other regions of the 
country to explore the possibility of forming their own interstate 
dairy compact in the future.
  Mr. President, the Northeast Dairy Compact has worked well. Just 
think if other commodities and other important resources around the 
country developed a program that had no cost to the federal government 
and benefitted both those who produce, sell, and purchase the product.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to 
this legislation, which would revive an arcane

[[Page S14997]]

and unjust federal dairy policy that has destroyed thousands of family 
dairy farms.
  Once again, the Senate is faced with dairy riders that fly in the 
face of recommendations from the Secretary of Agriculture, our nation's 
dairy farmers, and numerous taxpayer and consumer groups. It seems that 
political favors are more important to some in this Congress than 
policy decisions that help our nation's dairy farmers.
  During the last four years neither of these two harmful provisions--
Option 1A or the Northeast dairy compact--has won Senate approval. I 
ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: why must Senate and 
House leaders continue to play political games at the expense of our 
nation's dairy farmers?
  Mr. President, these backdoor deals must stop. America's dairy 
farmers deserve a national dairy policy that ensures that all dairy 
farmers receive a fair price for their milk.
  Unfortunately, the House and Senate leadership went into a back room, 
and snuck in these two riders that step up the attack on our dairy 
industry.
  These decisions were separate even from the eyes and ears of members, 
and most members of the Senate Agriculture committee. With the 
proliferation of these backroom deals, it is no wonder that the general 
public is frustrated with Congress.
  The simple fact is that neither of these two dairy riders has been 
approved by both chambers of Congress, or the President.
  I would like to make my colleagues aware of the history behind these 
two provisions. During the last four years, the only Senate vote 
explicitly on the Northeast dairy compact resulted in a resounding 
rejection.
  This year, the Senate again voted on a package containing the 
Northeast dairy compact, and it again failed to gain enough support to 
invoke cloture.
  Mr. President, the House has yet to take a single vote specifically 
on the Northeast dairy compact. Compared to the record of the House, 
these two votes make the Senate look like experts on the Northeast 
dairy compact.
  Furthermore, Mr. President, the 1996 farm bill required that the 
Northeast dairy compact expire upon implementation of USDA's reforms. 
Unfortunately these dairy riders seek to defy the will of Congress, and 
give the back of their hand to America's dairy farmers.
  After tens of thousands of comments, USDA came up with a modest plan 
to reform our 30-year-old milk marketing order structure.
  More than 59,000 dairy farmers from all over the United States 
participated in a USDA national referendum and 96% voted in favor of 
the United States Department of Agriculture's final rule to consolidate 
the current 31 federal milk marketing orders into 11, and to reform the 
price of Class I milk.
  USDA's proposal garnered nearly uniform support in each of the 11 
regions, including the Southeast, Midwest, and Northeast.
  The second of these harmful dairy riders, would overturn these 
reforms.
  Well, Mr. President, I take the floor today to deliver a simple 
message: Congress should not renew a milk marketing order system that 
devastates family farmers, and imposes higher costs on consumers and 
taxpayers.
  There has been a great deal of confusion over the effects of these 
harmful dairy provisions. Some say that mandating Option 1A and a two 
year extension of the Northeast dairy compact simply preserves the 
status quo.
  This legislation does much more than simply extend the 60-year milk 
marketing system.
  A new forward contracting provision in this dairy rider enables 
processors to pay farmers much less than the federal blend price for 
their milk.
  This forward contracting provision will also make the market less 
competitive for all other producers by reducing demand on the open 
market. Since it is likely that forward contracts would be offered to 
only the largest producers, this provision will result in losses to 
small and medium-sized producers, who will become residual suppliers.
  Mr. President, these dairy provisions shift the attack on our 
nation's dairy farmers into overdrive. This harmful legislation will 
continue to push our nation's dairy farmers out of business, and off 
their land.
  For sixty years, dairy farmers across America have been steadily 
driven out of business, and disadvantaged by the very Federal dairy 
policy this legislation seeks to revive.
  In 1950, Wisconsin had over 143 thousand dairy farms. After nearly 50 
years of the current dairy policy, Wisconsin is left with only 23 
thousand farms. Let me repeat: 23 thousand farms.
  Why would anyone seek to revive a dairy policy that has destroyed 
over 110 thousand dairy farms in a single state? That's more than five 
out of six farms in the last half-century.
  This devastation has not been limited to Wisconsin. Since 1950, 
America has lost over three million dairy farms. And this trend is 
accelerating, since 1985, America has lost over half of its dairy 
producers.
  Day after day, season after season, we are losing small farmers at an 
alarming rate. While these operations disappear, we are seeing the 
emergence of larger dairy farms.
  The trend toward a few large dairy operations is mirrored in States 
throughout the nation. The economic losses associated with the 
reduction of small farms goes well beyond the impact on the individual 
farm families that have been forced off their land.
  The loss of these farms has devastated rural communities where small 
family-owned dairy farms are the key to economic stability.
  Option 1A also hurts these communities in other ways: through higher 
costs passed on to both consumers and taxpayers.
  Option 1A would increase prices for milk and cheese in virtually 
every state in the country. Low income families and federal nutrition 
programs, which rely heavily on milk and cheese, will be seriously hurt 
by the price increases mandated by this legislation.
  The poor and elderly will be especially burdened by higher costs. 
Under Option 1A and the Compact food stamp recipients would lose $40 
million a year due to increases in beverage milk prices and another $18 
million a year due to increased cheese prices.
  This legislation also soaks taxpayers with a milk tax by imposing 
higher costs on every taxpayer because we all pay for nutrition 
programs such as food stamps and the national school lunch program.

  According to USDA, Option 1A alone would increase the average 
beverage milk price by nearly five cents a gallon and the cost of milk 
used for cheese by about two cents a gallon.
  If we add up these costs to all of the federal nutrition programs, 
the costs mount up quickly.
  Option 1A would cost the school lunch and school breakfast programs 
$19 million a year in higher beverage milk prices and cheese prices.
  The WIC program would face over $16 million in higher cheese and milk 
prices.
  Mr. President, the loss caused by Option 1A to the three major 
nutrition programs is $93 million. These regressive taxes unfairly 
burden children and the elderly. These hidden penalties on America's 
children and elderly must not be allowed to continue.
  The fact is, we need a new national dairy policy that stops 
devastating small farmers, and imposing higher costs on taxpayers and 
consumers.
  During my six years in the United States Senate, and twelve years in 
the Wisconsin State Senate, the overwhelming message I hear from dairy 
farmers in Wisconsin, Minnesota and throughout the Midwest, is that we 
need milk marketing order reform.
  Congress recognized the need for a new national dairy policy, and in 
1996, mandated that USDA reform the Federal milk marketing order 
system.
  Well, let's take a look at why farmers across the U.S. support USDA's 
reforms. This chart compares Class I milk prices under the final rule 
and the current pricing system.
  Under USDA's final rule dairy farmers in New England would receive 
19.29 per hundredweight, a $.26 increase over the current system. 
Farmers in eastern New York and Northern New Jersey would receive 
$19.04 per hundredweight, an $.11 per hundredweight increase. In 
Northern Florida, farmers would receive $20.34, a $.97 increase over 
the current system.
  These statistics underscore the importance of USDA's reforms for 
dairy farmers across the nation.
  As this chart makes clear, USDA's reforms provide relief to America's

[[Page S14998]]

dairy farmers, and begin to re-institute fairness into our dairy 
pricing structure.
  Perhaps even more compelling is this simple bar graph that 
illustrates the national average Class I milk price that farmers 
receive under the final rule and the current pricing system.
  As you can see farmers would have received 58 cents more per 
hundredweight under USDA's final rule.
  Farmers, consumer advocates, and taxpayer groups support USDA's 
reforms, and oppose these harmful dairy riders.
  Mr. President, America's farmers demanded USDA's reforms. We should 
heed their call and support USDA's final rule.
  Unfortunately, supporters of this legislation feel that they know 
better than America's dairy farmers, and wish to prevent USDA's 
moderate reforms. Ironically, one of the few changes to Federal dairy 
policy over the last 60 years has accelerated the attack on small 
farmers.
  Despite the discrimination against Wisconsin dairy farmers under the 
Eau Claire rule, backdoor politicking during the eleventh hour of the 
conference committee for the 1996 farm bill, stuck America's dairy 
farmers with the devastatingly harmful Northeast Dairy Compact. This 
provision further aggravated the inequities of the Federal milk 
marketing order system by establishing the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
Compact. While the Compact may sound benign, it establishes a price 
fixing entity for six Northeastern States--Vermont, Maine, New 
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.
  The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact Commission is empowered to set 
minimum prices for fluid milk higher than those established under 
Federal milk marketing orders. Never mind that farmers in the Northeast 
already receive higher minimum prices under the antiquated, 60 year old 
Eau Claire rule.
  The compact not only allows these six States to set artificially high 
prices for their producers, it permits them to block entry of lower-
priced milk from producers in competing States. Further distorting the 
markets are subsidies given to processors in these six States to export 
their higher-priced milk to non-compact States.
  Who can defend this system with a straight face? This compact amounts 
to nothing short of government-sponsored price fixing. It is 
outrageously unfair, and also bad policy.
  The compact interferes with interstate commerce and wildly distorts 
the marketplace by erecting artificial barriers around one specially 
protected region of the nation.
  The compact arbitrarily provides preferential price treatment for 
farmers in the Northeast at the expense of farmers in other regions who 
work just as hard, who love their homes just as much and whose products 
are just as good or better.
  It also irresponsibly encourages excess milk production in one region 
without establishing effective supply control. This practice flaunts 
basic economic principles and ignores the obvious risk that it will 
drive down milk prices for producers outside the compact region.
  Despite what some have argued, the Northeast Dairy Compact hasn't 
even helped small Northeast farmers.
  Since the Northeast first implemented its compact in 1997, small 
dairy farms in the Northeast, where this is supposed to help, have gone 
out of business at a rate of 41 percent higher than they had in the 
previous 2 years--41 percent higher.
  In fact, compacts often amount to a transfer of wealth to large farms 
by affording large farms a per-farm subsidy that is actually 20 times 
greater than the meager subsidy given to small farmers.
  We need to support USDA's moderate reforms, reject these harmful 
dairy riders and let our dairy farmers get a fair price for their milk.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today we are considering the District of 
Columbia appropriations bill, which includes not only funding for the 
nation's capital, but also regular appropriations for seven cabinet-
level departments--the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
Education, State, Justice, Commerce, and Interior.
  The package also includes four major authorization bills covering 
Medicare, foreign operations, satellite television, dairy programs, and 
scrap-metal recycling.
  Mr. President, under ordinary circumstances, legislation should not 
be packaged this way. If I were to base my vote merely upon the process 
that led us to combine these measures into one huge bill, I would vote 
no, as I have on the other omnibus bills that have come before the 
Senate during the last few years. However, I think there are some 
important distinctions between the package before us this year and what 
we have seen in the past.
  Unlike last year, for example, when free-for-all negotiations 
resulted in an orgy of new spending and wholesale concessions to the 
White House, this year the individual parts of the bill were negotiated 
separately, in a largely orderly process. Unlike last year, any 
additional spending won by the White House was required to be offset so 
that net spending would not increase.
  With the exception of the dairy provisions, which I oppose, I have 
concluded that I would vote for each of the measures included here if 
we had the opportunity to vote on them separately. For this reason and, 
because on balance, I believe the good in the rest of the package 
outweighs the bad, I will vote aye.
  Mr. President, when we look back on this legislation five or 10 years 
from now, I think we will see one aspect of it as truly historic.
  The legislation, despite its shortcomings, establishes a historic new 
precedent against ever again raiding the Social Security trust fund for 
other purposes--a precedent that future Presidents and Congresses will 
deviate from only at their own peril.
  The package has been designed to avoid intentionally spending a dime 
of the Social Security surplus. And if our estimates turn out to be 
right, it will be the first time since 1960--the first time in nearly 
40 years--that Congress did not tap the Social Security surplus to pay 
for other programs. It also means that we will be able to pay down 
publicly held debt by another $130 billion or so this year.
  Mr. President, I think everyone needs to recognize that estimates of 
spending and revenues can be affected by even the slightest changes in 
the economy, and so we will need to be prepared to adjust spending 
levels early next year if it appears that that is necessary to take 
further action to safeguard the Social Security surplus. We should even 
consider putting an automatic mechanism in place, as proposed in 
legislation I cosponsored with Senator Rod Grams, to make sure Social 
Security is never again tapped.
  In any event, it is important to recognize just how far we have come 
since 1995. That was the year Bill Clinton sent Congress a budget that 
would have spent every penny of the Social Security surplus every year 
for the foreseeable future, and still run $200 billion annual deficits 
on top of that. The President's FY96 budget submission would have 
resulted in actual deficits rising from about $259 billion in 1995 to 
roughly $289 billion this year.
  We did not follow the President's recommendations. We charted an 
entirely different course. The result: We now have a budget that sets 
aside the entire Social Security surplus and even runs an estimated $1 
billion surplus in the government's operating budget. That is progress.
  Because we do not raid Social Security, we had to do a better job of 
setting priorities so that we could take care of those things the 
American people care most about, and to a large degree, I think we 
succeeded. This bill provides a substantial increase in funds for 
medical research at the National Institutes of Health. We provide even 
more resources for education than the President asked for, and we take 
a modest first step in the direction of public school choice and 
providing local school districts with increased flexibility in how they 
will use federal funds to meet the particular needs of their students. 
We restore funding for hospitals and nursing homes that care for 
Medicare patients.
  We also include additional resources for law enforcement, including 
funding for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents, and funds to combat the 
scourge of methamphetamine in our communities. We are able to provide 
more money than the President sought for the Violence

[[Page S14999]]

Against Women Act. And we provide money to make sure federal agencies 
can be better stewards of our national parks, forests, and wildlife 
refuges.
  We require that international family-planning money be used for just 
that--family planning, not abortion or lobbying to liberalize the 
abortion laws of other countries. Although the compromise provisions 
would allow the President to waive the limitations and provide about 
$15 million to groups that engage in such activity, about 96 percent of 
the dollars would still remain subject to the restrictions.
  Of course, funding these various priorities means we had to limit 
spending in other areas in order to keep our promise not to raid Social 
Security. For example, the National Endowment for the Arts does not get 
the increase it sought. There will not be as much foreign aid as 
President Clinton wanted. We cut the President's Advanced Technology 
Program. To make doubly sure we keep our pledge to stay out of Social 
Security, we include a small across-the-board spending cut to force 
agencies to ferret out waste and abuse.
  It is hard for me to conceal my disappointment in several regards. 
First, I regret that Congress did not protect the projected surplus in 
the non-Social Security part of the budget. This bill, combined with 
the other appropriations bills that have already been signed into law, 
will spend the entire $14 billion surplus that was projected in the 
government's operating budget --excluding Social Security--and it will 
bust the spending caps Congress and the President agreed to only two 
years ago.
  Second, there is still far too much wasteful spending in the budget.
  And third, there is so much advance funding in the bill for FY2001 
that it will be difficult for us to stay within our spending targets 
for next year.
  On balance, though, it strikes me that the short-term cost of 
exceeding the caps and spending the relatively small non-Social 
Security surplus for this year is more than outweighed by the long-term 
discipline that will be imposed by the precedent we have set with 
regard to protecting Social Security.
  Mr. President, with that in mind, I intend to vote for this bill.


                    A BAD DEAL FOR WORKING AMERICANS

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, a year ago I was here in this chamber 
speaking on the 1998 Omnibus Appropriations legislation. I criticized 
the abusive process that made the entire negotiations exclusive, 
arbitrary, and conducted behind closed doors by only a few 
congressional leaders and White House staff, and few Members of the 
Congress had any idea what was in the bill but were asked to approve it 
without adequate review and amendments. I also urged the Congress not 
to repeat the mistake that we need to reform the process and start the 
process early in the year to avoid appropriations pressure.
  Many of my colleagues shared my views at the time and agreed that the 
federal budget process had become a reckless game, and it not only 
weakened the nation's fiscal discipline but also undermined the system 
of checks and balances established by the Constitution.
  At the beginning of the 106th Congress, I argued repeatedly in this 
chamber that the key to a successful budget process was to pursue 
comprehensive budget process reforms. I have introduced legislation to 
achieve these goals which includes legislation that would force us to 
pass a legally-binding federal budget, allow an automatic continuing 
resolution to kick-in to prevent government shutdown, set aside funds 
each year in the budget for true emergencies; strengthen the 
enforcement of budgetary controls; enhance accountability for Federal 
spending; mitigate the bias toward higher spending; modify Pay-As-You-
Go (PAYGO) procedures to accommodate budget surpluses; and establish a 
look-back sequester mechanism to ensure the Social Security surplus 
will be protected. We also need to pursue biennial budgeting and 
getting rid of the so-called ``baseline budgeting.''
  We were assured by Senate leaders that we were going to pursue real 
budget process reform early this year and that we would never have 
another omnibus spending bill in the future.
  Mr. President, I believe what we have before us today is a repeat of 
what was promised to never occur again. Once more, with inadequate time 
to review. The Houses passed this omnibus bill with absolutely no 
knowledge of what was in it. This is nearly a play-by-play of 1998 
because we have not reformed our budget process. As a result, after 
seven Continuing Resolutions, we have before us an omnibus spending 
bill that is full of creative financing and earmarked pork programs.
  Mr. President, when will we ever learn our lessons?
  Mr. President, it is entirely irresponsible and reckless that 
Congress has over-used advanced appropriations, used directed scoring, 
emergency spending and many other budgetary smoke and mirrors to dodge 
fiscal discipline and significantly increase government spending. Like 
last year's omnibus bill, this legislation is heavily loaded with 
irresponsible and inappropriate provisions. It is severely flawed by 
new spending, no CBO scoring, gimmick offsets and billions of pork-
barrel programs. Many last-minute spending needs were loaded into this 
omnibus bill just in the last few days. I still cannot even tell you 
what they are, since we haven't been given enough time to review it. 
The double whammy delivered to Minnesota dairy farmers by adding a two-
year extension of the Northeast dairy compact and 1 A order reform is 
my main reason for opposing this bill. These outrageous last-minute 
additions seriously hurt Mid-West dairy farmers and are the reason why 
we are still here today.
  This omnibus bill has again proven that big government is well and 
alive in Washington. The bill provides a total $385 billion for just 
five spending bills, a significant increase over last year's levels. 
Congress is recklessly and irresponsibly throwing more and more 
taxpayers' money to help the President enlarge the government. Billions 
of dollars were added to the spending legislation avoiding the normal 
committee process, without any amendments and full debate. If hiring 
more police officers and more elementary school teachers is the 
solution to stop crime and improve education, let us have an open 
debate on the merits of the policy through the usual democratic 
process. Let's not cut deals behind the closed door in meetings by just 
a few.
  Since we established statutory spending limits, Washington has 
repeatedly broken them because of lack of fiscal discipline. We have 
done so again this year.
  In my judgment, this omnibus spending bill and the other 
appropriation bills have been enacted have spent billions of dollars 
more than the spending caps if we would use honest numbers to score 
them. To date, the Congressional Budget Office has not provided us with 
its estimates on this bill. Because of the CBO's inability to score the 
bill, we do not know what the real cost of it, or whether it stays 
within the 302(b) allocations.
  But we do know many accounting rules have been bent in putting this 
bill together to avoid the tighter spending caps. Let me explain: This 
bill relies heavily on the so-called ``directed scoring'' technique for 
it increased spending. Traditionally, Congress always uses the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates for scorekeeping. However, 
because the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has more favorable 
estimates for some government programs than the CBO, the Congress 
simply directed CBO to use OMB numbers to keep score for this year's 
spending bills.
  One of these OMB estimates the CBO was directed to use is the $2.4 
billion spectrum sales revenue expected to be collected next year. We 
all know that level of sales will not be reached. In fact, we 
criticized the President for using this overoptimistic number in his 
past budgets.

  Just by using the OMB's rosy estimates, without making any hard 
choices, Congress has increased this year's 302(b) allocations by over 
$17.4 billion. But the real danger is, by the end of the year, the CBO 
will use its own estimates to score our budget surplus or deficit. If 
OMB's numbers prove to be unrealistic and wrong, we end up spending the 
Social Security surplus we have vowed to protect and it will be too 
late to adjust the budget accordingly. This is the last thing we want 
to

[[Page S15000]]

do. That is why I was disappointed my bill to provide an automatic 
sequester triggered by spending of the Social Security surplus was not 
passed. This procedure is absolutely essential to ensure we keep our 
commitment to protect Social Security.
  Again and again, Washington lowers the fiscal bar and then jumps over 
it, or finds ways around it, at the expense of the American taxpayers, 
so all the spenders and those special interests who benefit at other 
expenses go home happy.
  Mr. President, abusive use of emergency spending is another gimmick 
applied in this omnibus spending bill, as well as in the other 
appropriation bills we've passed. Last year alone, Congress 
appropriated $35 billion for so-called emergencies. This year again, 
over $24 billion of emergency spending was appropriated. Since 1991, 
emergency spending has totaled over $145 billion. Most of these 
``emergencies'' were used to fund regular government programs, not 
unanticipated true emergencies. Emergency spending is sought as a 
vehicle to add on even more spending priorities and thus to dodge 
fiscal discipline because emergency spending is not counted against the 
spending caps. This has gone too far. We need a better way to budget 
for emergencies. Most of this spending can be planned within our budget 
limits. Even natural disasters happen regularly--why not budget for 
them, as I proposed in my budget process legislation.
  Mr. President, while I agree ``advance appropriations,'' ``advance 
funding'' and ``forward funding'' are not uncommon practice here, it 
does not mean they are the right thing to do, particularly when these 
budget techniques are used to dodge much-needed fiscal discipline.
  In the past five years, ``advance appropriations'' have increased 
dramatically, jumping from $1.9 billion in FY 1996 to $11.6 billion in 
FY 2000, an increase of $9.7 billion over five years. This year, at 
least $19 billion was advanced into FY 2001 and outyears which will 
create even worse problems for us next year and in the future.
  I understand the upward spending pressure the Congress is facing this 
year and in the outyears. But I believe we should, and can, meet this 
challenge by prioritizing and streamlining government programs while 
maintaining fiscal discipline. We can reduce wasteful, unnecessary, 
duplicated, low-priority government programs to fund the necessary and 
responsible function of government. But we need a Biennial Budget, as 
Senator Domenici recommends, to give us time to do this.
  Instead of streamlining federal spending, we have thrown in more 
money to please big spenders without the needed analysis to ensure the 
spending will help us solve problems. Like last year's bill, this bill 
looks like a Christmas tree full of pork projects. Many are added in 
the last minute negotiation. But we don't know exactly what they are 
and how much they cost, because again we have not been given enough 
time to review this bill. Here are a few examples as identified by 
Senator McCain:
  An entirely new title is included in the legislation during last 
minute negotiations, the ``Mississippi National Forest Improvement Act 
of 1999,'' which had not previously been considered in the previous 
Senate or House bills. A half million dollars is added for the Salt 
Lake City Olympic tree program. It earmarked $2 million for the 
University of Mississippi Center for Sustainable Health Outreach and $3 
million for the Center for Environmental Medicine and Toxicology at the 
University of Mississippi Medical Center at Jackson. An earmark of $3 
million is added for the Wheeling National Heritage Area and $3 million 
for the Lincoln Library. It earmarked $2 million for Tupelo School 
District in Mississippi for technology innovation. It includes an 
earmark of $3 million for the Southwest Pennsylvania Heritage Area. It 
also earmarked $1 million for the completion of the Easter Seal 
Society's Early Childhood Development Project for the Mississippi River 
Delta Region and $1 million for the Center for Literacy and Assessment 
at the University of Southern Mississippi. It also includes an increase 
of $3.6 million for Washington State Hatchery Improvement.
  As the result, we've ended up spending much more money than we should 
have. My biggest fear, Mr. President, is this omnibus spending 
legislation may allow Congress and the President to spend some of the 
Social Security surplus by not imposing an adequate across-the-board 
spending reduction.
  Even counting all the ``directed scoring,'' ``advanced 
appropriations,'' every penny of the $14 billion on-budget surplus and 
other budgetary gimmicks, it is estimated that Congress could still dip 
into the Social Security surplus by nearly $5 billion. To fill that gap 
we need to reduce government spending by 0.97 percent across-the-board. 
But the agreement reached between congressional leaders and the White 
House allows only a 0.38 percent reduction which would result in $1.3 
billion savings. Clearly, this is done just for face-saving reason, and 
will not ensure that the Social Security surplus is protected.
  The proponents of this omnibus bill may quickly point out that there 
are offsets to fund the new spending. But we all know most of the 
offsets are simply gimmicks. The best example is a $3.5 billion 
transfer from the Federal Reserve surplus to the Treasury.
  As you know, there is nothing new about this proposal and it has been 
around for quite a while. In the past, Chairman Greenspan called this 
transfer of the Fed's surplus to the Treasury ``a gimmick that has no 
real economic impact on the deficit.'' Because it is just an intra-
governmental transfer that would not change the government's true 
economic and financial position.
  Other offsets such as a one-day delay in pay for our military and 
civilians will cause enormous financial hardship for millions of 
American families who depend on the regular paychecks to pay their 
mortgage, daycare for their kids, and other priorities. Many small 
businesses and contractors can be adversely affected by this offset as 
well. Again, this has proven that the victims of Washington's spending 
spree are the American taxpayers.
  Mr. President, there are many provisions in the omnibus 
appropriations bill I support, such as the BBA Medicare fix which 
includes reinstatement of Minnesota's DSH allotment, the State 
Department Authorization which includes payment of the U.N. arrears and 
my embassy security proposal, Home Satellite TV access and others. In 
fact I have worked hard on many of these proposals. However, I believe 
the dairy provisions and the general lack of fiscal discipline in the 
bill have far overshadowed the good provisions. Overall, it is a bad 
deal for working Americans in general and it is a bad deal for my 
fellow Minnesotans in particular. I therefore cannot in good conscience 
vote for this fiscally irresponsible legislation.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep disappointment 
at the language affecting Federal dairy policy included in the Omnibus 
appropriations bill before us. As the Members know, the Omnibus measure 
includes an extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact and language on 
reforming our Nation's Federal dairy policy which has been in place 
since the Depression.
  It may seem unusual to some Members that a Senator from Iowa would 
have an interest in this matter. While Iowa's reputation as an 
agriculture powerhouse is well-established and well-deserved, I think 
when many people think of agriculture in Iowa, they think of 
commodities such as soybeans or pork. However, the dairy industry is 
very important to Iowa as well. The total economic contribution of the 
dairy industry to the Iowa economy is over $1.5 billion annually. 
Nearly 10,000 Iowans are employed through dairy farming and processing. 
Furthermore, Iowa ranks 12th in the Nation in Dairy Production. So the 
State of Iowa has good reason to be concerned about Federal dairy 
policy.
  I have long been concerned about the impact of the Northeast Dairy 
Compact, which was authorized by the 1996 farm bill and which was due 
to sunset in October of this year, has had, and how it will affect 
producers in the future. I voted in 1996 to strip the language from the 
farm bill which allowed for the formation of the Northeast Dairy 
Compact. The only reason the language was included in the farm bill was 
political trading at the last minute. Since the inception of the 
Northwest Compact, it is clear that its consequences have not been 
good.

[[Page S15001]]

  According to the International Dairy Foods Association, the Northeast 
Compact has cost New England milk consumers nearly $65 million in 
higher milk prices, at the same time costing child nutrition programs 
$9 million more. Consumers have paid a price that is too high for the 
Northeast Compact. We should not make more consumers suffer the same 
consequences. I also believe that compacts are an abuse of the 
Constitution. While the Constitution does allow for the formation of 
compacts, it is usually invoked for transportation or public works 
project.
  The Northeast Dairy Compact is the first time that compacts have been 
used for the purpose of price fixing for regional interests. For the 
most effective functioning of the U.S. economy, it must be unified. 
Preventing economic protectionism is at the heart of our Constitution. 
Renewing or expanding compacts flies in the face of that basic tenet. 
Furthermore, neither the Judiciary Committee or the Agriculture 
Committee, which have jurisdiction over such matters, has had the 
opportunity to review this measure. Such a committee examination is 
warranted and necessary.
  One of the things that worries me about dairy compacts is their 
potential effect on other commodities. Higher prices mean more milk and 
less demand. The key to increasing dairy producers' income is expanding 
demand for milk and dairy products. If we take steps to expand dairy 
compacts, we will be going in the opposite direction. It is also my 
view that compacts are contradictory to the philosophy of freedom to 
farm, which my friend, the senior Senator from Vermont, supported. The 
whole philosophy behind freedom to farm was moving away from the old 
``command and control'', government-run AG policies of the past. We 
need more free markets and free trade, not less. which brings me to my 
final point on compacts. As Chairman of the Finance Committee's 
Subcommittee on Trade, maintaining a strong trade position for the 
United States is my top priority. One of the reasons why the United 
States is the only true superpower left in the world and why our Nation 
remains economically strong while others have faltered is because we 
function as one economically. Our economic prosperity is undeniable 
proof of the superiority of free and open markets. If we were to allow 
the perpetuation of dairy compacts, it would send a very damaging 
signal to the rest of the world.

  It would send the message that we do not have the confidence that a 
free and open economy will ensure that producers who come to the market 
with a quality product will be able to support themselves. Not only is 
the compact language in this bill unacceptable for dairy producers in 
the Midwest, but the Omnibus bill also includes language on the 
Nation's milk marketing orders that is detrimental to Iowa's dairy 
producers. Members know that milk marketing orders are a system put in 
place over 60 years ago to regulate milk handlers in a particular order 
region to promote orderly marketing conditions.
  The 1996 farm bill required USDA to cut the number of marketing 
orders by over half and implement an up-to-date market oriented system 
of milk distribution. After a great deal of study and comment, USDA 
came up with two proposals, Option 1-A, and Option 1-B. Option 1-A is 
close to the status quo and Option 1-B is geared toward the free market 
and modernizing the system. While neither proposal was perfect, Option 
1-B was definitely a better choice. However, given the concerns 
expressed by the public about both proposals, USDA issued a compromise 
initiative, which was still preferable to Option 1-A. Unfortunately, 
Option 1-A proponents have succeeded in getting Option 1-A language 
included in the Omnibus appropriations bill.
  Those who favor 1-A sometimes make the argument that the compromise 
devised by USDA would cost dairy farmers nationwide $200 million. 
However, according to the USDA, net farm income would be higher under 
the compromise that under the status quo which is what 1-A is in many 
ways. The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, which is 
located in my State at Iowa State University, has concluded that 60 
percent of the Nation's dairy farmers would receive more income under 
the USDA compromise plan.
  The unequal treatment of the old system, which is maintained by 1-A, 
artificially raises prices for milk in other parts of the country, 
encouraging excess production which spills into Midwestern markets. 
This simply lowers the price that Midwestern producers receive.
  The Federal Milk Marketing order System is out of date and out of 
touch with modern production and economics. It is long overdue for 
reform and this language in the Omnibus bill just puts that off. My 
producers and others in other Midwestern States have endured the 
inequities of the Milk Marketing Order System long enough. I am very 
disappointed that the unfairness of the old system would be perpetuated 
by the language in this bill. We could still correct the mistakes made 
by this bill which would have a tremendously detrimental effect on 
dairy producers within Iowa and the rest of Midwest.
  I urge the leadership on both sides of the aisle to work with 
Midwestern Senators to help put an end to the unfair treatment of the 
Midwestern dairy farmers. Thank you.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I reiterate my support for the two year 
extension of the very successful Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. 
And after all I have read recently--not that one should believe 
everything they read--I feel compelled to set the record straight on 
this issue one more time.
  The Northeast Dairy Compact has addressed the needs of states in New 
England who compacted together within their region to determine fair 
prices for locally produced supplies of fresh milk. All six 
legislatures and all six governors in New England approved the Compact.
  In fact, in 1989-1990, the Vermont House passed it unanimously and 
the Senate passed it 29 to 1. The Maine House passed it 114 to 1 and it 
was unanimously adopted by the Senate. The legislatures in Connecticut, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island adopted it overwhelmingly 
in 1993.
  I would also note that despite the varying views, party affiliations 
and economic philosophies, this is one issue where the entire New 
England Congressional Delegation is united. And that, in and of itself, 
is quite a feat.
  Let me tell you why New England is united behind the Dairy Compact. 
We want our family farmers. This way of life is threatened for a number 
of reasons including the encroachment of development which leads to the 
increased cost of land.
  I think one Mainer summed it up quite nicely in a letter to the 
editor. In this letter she noted that it was okay to be against the 
Compact ``. . . if you think we will be better off having subdivisions 
where our farms once stood, if you believe it's to our advantage to say 
good-bye to the last family farms and hello to big business controlling 
the production, distribution and pricing . . . .''
  In my own state of Maine we have lost 31 percent of our dairy farms 
in the last 10 years. We have 485 dairy farms left and they average 80 
milking cows and provide 2100 related jobs. They allow the continuation 
of a rural way of life that is fast disappearing not only in New 
England but throughout the country. And it is a way of life that we 
will not give up without a fight.
  The men and women who own our dairy farms are doing it because it is 
in their blood--their parents did it, their grandparents did it and in 
many cases their great grandparents did it. You don't go into dairy 
farming to make money--you go into it because it is in your blood, it 
is what you know and what you love. And the Compact is the only thing 
standing between many of these families and the loss of not only their 
farm but their way of life.
  In Maine we have a saying that you are ``from away'' if you are not 
from Maine. Let me assure you that if you told a Maine dairy farmer 
that he was part of a price fixing cartel, as several newspapers have 
claimed, he would immediately know that you were from away . . . far, 
far away.
  The beauty of the Compact is that it reflects the New England way of 
life--self-reliance--we don't ask the federal government for one penny. 
Instead, New Englanders pay a few cents more for milk to support the 
Compact--a very small price to pay to protect our rural way of life.
  Let me repeat that--we are not asking the federal taxpayer in 
Wisconsin

[[Page S15002]]

or Texas or Minnesota to subsidize our farmers--although I might add 
that New England's taxpayers have historically subsidized farmers in 
other parts of the country.
  The Compact has proven to be an effective approach to address farm 
insecurity. The Compact has protected New England against the loss of 
their small family dairy farms and the consumers against a decrease in 
the fresh local supply of milk. The Compact has stabilized the dairy 
industry in this entire region and protected farmers and consumers 
against volatile price swings.
  Over ninety-seven percent of the fluid milk market in New England is 
self-contained within the area, and fluid milk markets are local due to 
the demand for freshness and because of high transportation costs, so 
any complaints raised in other areas about unfair competition are quite 
disingenuous.
  All we are asking, Mr. President, is the continuation of the 
Northeast Dairy Compact, the existence of which does not threaten or 
financially harm any other dairy farmer in the country.
  Let there be no mistake, the Northeast Dairy Compact does not stand 
alone in the Omnibus bill. Additional dairy language is included in the 
bill that restores the existing federal program, the Milk Marketing 
Order system, which fixes the price of milk in different regions across 
the country, and is initiated and approved by producers in specific 
areas.
  The USDA adopted a final Rule on Milk Marketing Orders in March, a 
rule I might add that favors dairy farmers in the Upper Midwest at the 
expense of the rest of the country. On September 22, the House 
expressed its opposition to this rule when they voted 285-140 to 
restore the current system by placing a moratorium on the Final Rule. 
So, this is not one region of the country speaking--although some 
apparently believe that New England's family farmers make a good 
scapegoat--as 65 percent of the House of Representatives voted to pass 
the moratorium language.
  The New England Compact adds about two cents a gallon to the 
consumer--not 20 cents as the Wall Street Journal would have you 
believe. They seem to be under the impression that the farmers set the 
price for the milk you buy at the store--the fact is that the prices, 
as we all know, are set by the retailer. Under the Compact, New England 
retail milk prices have been among the lowest and the most stable in 
the country.
  The opposition has tried to make the argument that interstate dairy 
compacts increase milk prices. This is just not so as milk prices 
around the U.S. have shown time and again that prices elsewhere are 
much higher and experience much wider price shifts than in the 
Northeast Compact states. Just take a look at dairy prices around the 
country for a gallon of milk.
  The price in Bangor and Augusta, Maine ranged from $2.89 to $2.99 per 
gallon from February to April of 1999 and has remained stable at $2.89 
for the last several months.
  In the Boston, Massachusetts market, the price stayed perfectly 
stable--at $2.89--from February to April of 1999.
  The price in Seattle ranged from $3.39 to $3.56 over the same time 
period. Washington State is not in a compact, yet their milk was 
approximately 50 cents higher per gallon than in Maine. The range in 
Los Angeles was from $3.19 to $3.29. In San Diego, the range was from 
$3.10 to $3.62. California is not in a compact.
  Las Vegas prices were $2.99 all the way up to $3.62. Not much price 
stability there, but then, Nevada is not in a compact. In Philadelphia, 
the range was $2.78 to $3.01 per gallon--not as wide a shift as Nevada 
but a much wider price shift than the Northeast Compact states. It's no 
wonder Pennsylvania dairy farmers want to join us.
  How about Denver--Colorado is not in a compact. A gallon of milk in 
Denver has cost consumers anywhere from $3.45 to $3.59 over the past 
few months, over one half of a dollar more than in New England. So, the 
Northeast Dairy Compact has not resulted in higher milk prices in New 
England, but the milk prices are among the lowest in the country--and 
are among the most stable.
  Only the consumers and the processors in the New England region pay a 
few cents extra for milk that already costs less than just about 
anywhere else in the country--to provide for a fairer return to the 
area's family dairy farmers and to protect a way of life important to 
the people of the Northeast.
  Also, where is the consumer outrage from the Compact states for 
spending a few extra pennies for fresh fluid milk so as to ensure a 
safety net for dairy farmers so that they can continue an important way 
of life? I have not heard any swell of outrage of consumer complaints 
over the last three years. Why, because the consumers also realize this 
initial pilot project, whose costs are borne entirely by the New 
England consumers and processors, has been a huge success.
  So, I ask my colleagues to look at the facts, not the fables being 
spread by those who have simply chosen not to let the facts get in 
their way.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to express my 
strong support for the Northeast Dairy Compact. Since taking effect in 
October 1997, the Compact has stabilized milk prices for both farmers 
and consumers in New England.
  Farmers across the country are unable to make ends meet. The number 
of farmers in New England has declined significantly in recent years. 
In 1992, Massachusetts had 365 dairy farms. Today, that number has 
declined to 290 dairy farms. Farmers in New England are losing a 
priceless heritage, that their families have owned for generations--
some since the 1600s. The Northeast Dairy Compact helps ensure that in 
the face of these difficult times for their industry, our farmers will 
have a consistent income to preserve their way of life.
  There are many misconceptions about the Dairy Compact. One of the 
most serious misconceptions is that taxpayers pick up the cost of the 
Compact. Taxpayers do not pay for this program--it is run at no cost to 
the federal government.
  In addition, with respect to competition a Congressional a condition 
imposed on the Compact specifically provides that: ``The Northeast 
Interstate Dairy Compact Commission shall not prohibit or in any way 
limit the marketing in the compact region of any milk or milk product 
produced in any other production area in the United States.''
  Another misconception is that the Dairy Compact hurts the poor. This 
program does not hurt poor people. WIC and the school lunch program are 
exempt. In fact, in New England, the Compact overpaid these programs 
for two years in a row.
  When approved in 1996, the purpose of the Dairy Compact was to ensure 
the viability of dairy farming in the Northeast and to ensure an 
adequate supply of local milk to consumers. The Compact is a price 
support, and was never intended to make anyone rich. It was intended to 
preserve small family farms and provide safeguards against excessive 
production.
  The Compact has been a great success. The price of milk has actually 
dropped by an average of 5 cents a gallon across New England, and for 
many months at a time, prices have remained so stable that no compact 
money has been paid to farmers.
  The Dairy Compact is good for our farmers, preserving their way of 
life. It is good for the environment, preserving farms and green space 
that Western Massachusetts is known for. And it is good for consumers, 
stabilizing prices and ensuring a fresh and local supply of milk.
  We stand for free competition, but we also stand for fair 
competition. In many areas of current law, there are long-standing 
provisions designed to produce competition that is both free and fair. 
The New England Dairy Compact deserves the support it has received from 
the Senate in recent years, and I hope that it will continue to receive 
that support.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is a great day for the critically 
important search for medical breakthroughs. I am very pleased to say 
that the omnibus appropriations act contains a record $2.3 billion 
increase in support for medical research through the National 
Institutes of Health. We are now well on our way towards our goal of 
doubling our nation's investment in the search for medical 
breakthroughs.
  This increase will directly benefit the health of the American 
people. It will speed up the day when we have a

[[Page S15003]]

cure for cancer and other deadly diseases.
  On top of that, the Senate has passed S. 1268, the Twenty-First 
Century Research Laboratories Act of 1999. This bill cosponsored by 
Senators Frist, Kennedy, Chafee, Reed of Rhode Island, Mack, Mikulski, 
Murray, Cleland, Helms, Warner, Sarbanes, Schumer, Cochran, Durbin, 
Moynihan, Boxer, Roberts, Reid of Nevada, Specter, Feinstein, Collins, 
Inouye and Hagel. I want to thank my colleagues for cosponsoring this 
legislation, and for their support in getting it passed.
  This bill addresses a critical shortfall in our nation's medical 
research enterprise. I was pleased to work with Senator Specter this 
year to achieve a $2.3 billion increase for the National Institutes of 
Health. The Conference Agreement of the Fiscal Year 2000 Labor, Health 
and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Subcommittee, provides $17.9 billion for the NIH. This puts us well on 
track to double funding for the NIH over the next five years, a target 
that was agreed to by the Senate, 98-0, in 1997.
  However, as Congress embarks on this important investment in improved 
health, we must strengthen the totality of the biomedical research 
enterprise. While it is critical to focus on high quality, cutting edge 
basic and clinical research, we must also consider the quality of the 
laboratories and buildings where that research is being conducted.
  In fact, Mr. President, the infrastructure of research institutions, 
including the need for new physical facilities, is central to our 
nation's leadership in medical research. Despite the significant 
scientific advances produced by Federally-funded research, most of that 
research is currently being done in medical facilities built in the 
1950's and 1960's, a time when the Federal government obligated from 
$30 million to $100 million a year for facility and equipment 
modernization. Since then, however, annual appropriations for 
modernization of our biomedical research infrastructure have 
dramatically declined, ranging from zero to $20 million annually over 
the past decade.
  I am pleased to report that this year we were able to increase that 
amount to $75 million in our appropriations bill. While this is an 
important improvement, much more is needed. As a result, many of our 
research facilities and laboratories are outdated and inadequate to 
meet the challenge of the next millennium.
  In order to realize major medical breakthroughs in Alzheimer's, 
diabetes, Parkinson's, cancer and other major illnesses, our nation's 
top researchers must have top quality, state-of-the-art laboratories 
and equipment. Unfortunately, the status of our research infrastructure 
is woefully inadequate.
  A recent study by the National Science Foundation finds that academic 
institutions have deferred, due to lack of funds nearly $11.4 billion 
in repair, renovation, and construction projects. Almost one quarter of 
all research space requires either major renovation or replacement and 
70% of medical schools report having inadequate space in which to 
perform biomedical research.
  A separate study by the National Science Foundation documents the 
laboratory equipment needs for researchers and found that 67 percent of 
research institutions reported an increased need for laboratory 
instruments. At the same time, the report found that spending for such 
instruments at colleges and universities actually declined in the early 
1990s.
  Several other prominent organizations have documented the need for 
increased funding for research infrastructure. A March 1998 report by 
the Association of American Medical Colleges stated that ``The 
government should reestablish and fund a National Institutes of Health 
construction authority. . . .'' A June 1998 report by the Federation of 
American Societies of Experimental Biology stated that ``Laboratories 
must be built and equipped for the science of the 21st century . . . 
Infrastructure investments should include renovation of existing space 
as well as new construction, where appropriate.''
  As we work to double funding for medical research over the next few 
years, the already serious shortfall in the modernization of our 
nation's aging research facilities and labs will continue to worsen 
unless we take specific action. Future increases in NIH must be matched 
with increased funding for repair, renovation and construction of 
research facilities, as well as the purchase of modern laboratory 
equipment.
  Mr. President, the bill that passed the Senate today expands federal 
funding for facilities construction and state-of-the-art laboratory 
equipment through the NIH by increasing the authorization for this 
account within the National Center for Research Resources to $250 
million in FY 2000 and $500 million in FY 2001.
  In addition, the bill authorizes a ``Shared Instrumentation Grant 
Program'' at NIH, to be administered by the Center. The program will 
provide grants for the purchase of shared-use, state-of-the-art 
laboratory equipment costing over $100,000. All grants awarded under 
these two programs will be peer-reviewed, as is the practice with all 
NIH grants and projects.
  We are entering a time of great promise in the field of biomedical 
research. We are on the verge of major breakthroughs which could end 
the ravages of cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's and the scores of 
illnesses and conditions which take the lives and health of millions of 
Americans, But to realize these breakthroughs, we must devote the 
necessary resources to our nation's research enterprise.
  I want to thank the Association of American Universities, the 
Association of American Medical Colleagues and the Federation of 
American Societies of Experimental Biology for their support for this 
legislation.
  I thank my colleagues for their support of this important health care 
legislation, and I look forward to working with our colleagues in the 
House of Representatives next year to ensure this legislation is signed 
into law. Thank you.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate passed today, 
S. 1243, the Prostate Cancer Research and Prevention Act, which I 
introduced on June 18, 1999 to address the serious issue of prostate 
cancer.
  This year 37,000 American men will die, and 179,300 will be diagnosed 
with prostate cancer, the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths 
in American men. Cancer of the prostate grows slowly, without symptoms, 
and thus is often undetected until in its most advanced and incurable 
stage. It is critical that men are aware of the risk of prostate cancer 
and take steps to ensure early detection.
  While the average age of a man diagnosed with prostate cancer is 66, 
the chance of developing prostate cancer rises dramatically with age--
which makes it important for men to be screened or consult their health 
care professional. The American Cancer Society and the American 
Urological Association recommend that men over 50 receive both an 
annual physical exam and a PSA (prostate-specific antigen) blood test. 
African-American men, who are at higher risk, and men with a family 
history of prostate cancer should begin yearly screening at age 40.
  Even if the blood test is positive, however, it does not mean that a 
man definitely has prostate cancer. In fact, only 25 percent of men 
with positive PSAs actually have prostate cancer. Further testing is 
needed to determine if cancer is actually present. Once the cancer is 
diagnosed, treatment options vary according to the individual. In 
elderly men, for example, the cancer may be especially slow growing and 
may not spread to other parts of the body. In those cases, treatment of 
the prostate may not be necessary, and physicians often monitor the 
cancer with follow-up examinations.
  Unfortunately, preventive risk factors for prostate cancer are 
currently unknown and the effective measures to prevent this disease 
have not been determined. In addition, scientific evidence is 
insufficient to determine if screening for prostate cancer reduces 
deaths or if treatment of disease at an early stage is more effective 
than no treatment in prolonging a person's life. Currently, health 
practitioners cannot accurately determine which cancer will progress to 
become clinically significant and which will not. Thus, screening and 
testing for early detection of prostate cancer should be discussed 
between a man and his health care practitioners.
  In an effort to help address the serious issues of prostate cancer 
screening,

[[Page S15004]]

to increase awareness and surveillance of prostate cancer, and to 
unlock the current mysteries of prostate cancer through research, the 
``Prostate Cancer Research and Prevention Act'' expands the authority 
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to carry-out 
activities related to prostate cancer screening, overall awareness, and 
surveillance of the disease. In addition, the bill extends the 
authority of the National Institutes of Health to conduct basic and 
clinical research in combating prostate cancer.
  The bill directs the CDC to establish grants to States and local 
health departments in an effort to increase awareness, surveillance, 
information dissemination regarding prostate cancer, and to examine the 
scientific evidence regarding screening for prostate cancer. The main 
focus is to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of various 
screening strategies for prostate cancer and the establishment of a 
public information and education program about the issues regarding 
prostate cancer. The CDC will also strengthen and improve surveillance 
on the incidence and prevalence of prostate cancer with a major force 
on increasing the understanding of the greater risk of this disease in 
African-American men.
  The bill also reauthorizes the authority of the CDC to conduct a 
prostate screening program upon consultation with the U.S. Preventive 
Services Task Force and professional organizations regarding the 
scientific issues regarding prostate cancer screening. The screening 
program, when implemented, will provide grants to States and local 
health departments to screen men for prostate cancer with priority 
given to low income men and African-American men. In addition the 
screening program will provide referrals for medical treatment of those 
screened and ensure appropriate follow up services including case 
management.
  Finally, to continue the investment in medical research, the bill 
extends the authority of the National Cancer Institute at the National 
Institutes of Health to conduct and support research to expand the 
understanding of the cause of, and find a cure for, prostate cancer. 
Activities authorized include basic research concerning the etiology 
and causes of prostate cancer, and clinical research concerning the 
causes, prevention, detection and treatment of prostate cancer.
  Mr. President, on the very day I introduced this bill last June, I 
participated in an event sponsored by the American Cancer Society and 
Endocare to award our former colleague Senator Dole for his leadership 
in raising public awareness for prostate cancer. In 1991, Senator Dole 
was diagnosed with prostate cancer, and since that diagnosis and 
successful treatment he has turned this potential tragedy into a 
triumph as he has helped untold others by raising public awareness of 
this devastating disease. I want to take this opportunity to thank 
Senator Dole and organizations that have worked tirelessly to help 
promote this and other men's health issues, including The American 
Cancer Society, The Men's Health Network, and American Urological 
Association. I also want to thank these organizations for their support 
and help in drafting this legislation. I am pleased that the Senate has 
acted to pass this important bill, which will help to further increase 
awareness, surveillance and research of this deadly disease, and look 
forward to its ultimate enactment into law.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to add some additional 
comments to my statement that appeared in the Congressional Record on 
Tuesday, November 16, 1999.
  Just a few days ago, on Tuesday, November 16, several constituents of 
mine were involved in a disastrous truck-related crash on I-285, a 
major commuter route around Atlanta. The crash took place during the 
morning rush hour. Four tractor-trailer trucks were involved in the 
crash, two of which were tankers hauling flammable materials. Four 
passenger cars were also involved in the crash, and tragically, one 
woman was killed when her vehicle was crushed between two tractor-
trailer trucks. Four others were rushed to the hospital to be treated 
for injuries. Thankfully, no further fatalities have been reported and 
no evacuation was required due to the sensitive material two of the 
trucks were hauling. This crash underscores the need to guarantee that 
truck safety is a priority in this country, and hopefully, reduce the 
occurrence of accidents such as this.
  H.R. 3419 is a step in the right direction. It creates a new motor 
carrier safety administration. In a hearing before the Senate Commerce 
Committee, of which I am a member, the Department of Transportation 
(DOT) Inspector General (IG) testified that the current oversight 
system for the trucking industry within the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) is not adequate. In fact, one of the main 
supporters of this legislation is Transportation Secretary Slater, who 
saw the need to create a separate motor carrier oversight 
administration focused entirely on safety.
  Now that Congressional sentiment has swung toward adoption of H.R. 
3419 and the establishment of a new Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, my colleagues and I should track the implementation of 
this statute to ensure that the new agency will not bring with it the 
problems associated with the former body. Safety and compliance should 
be the utmost concerns of this office, with the American motorist as 
the benefactor of their efforts.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to speak about H.R. 3419, the 
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act, which the Senate approved today. 
I commend Senator McCain, chairman of the Commerce Commitee, for 
holding hearings on this issue. These hearings, as well as reports from 
the Department of Transportation's Inspector General, have shown how 
critical it is for us all to pay closer attention to the safety 
problems on our highways.
  In 1998, 5,374 people were killed in truck-related crashes and over 
127,000 were injured. Although trucks account for only 3 percent of 
registered vehicles, they are involved in 9 percent of fatal crashes, 
and 12 percent of all highway-related deaths. This is simply 
unacceptable, and we must do all we can to reduce fatalities and 
injuries on our highways.
  Recently, I met with one of my constituents, Cynthia Cozzolino, who 
lost her brother, sister-in-law, young nephew, and niece in a horrible 
truck-related crash last August. This terrible tragedy could have been 
prevented if we made safety a higher priority, particularly truck 
inspection. Worn straps may have contributed to a truck spilling its 
load of concrete piping instantaneously killing this young family 
riding in their van behind the truck.
  Highway truck traffic is an increasing part of our economy. 
California highway trucks carry 57 billion tons per mile, second only 
to Texas. In Southern California, the growing goods movement from ports 
and airports will push the current regional truck volume up by 40 
percent over the next 20 years. One section of Interstate 15 is likely 
to see almost 13,000 truck trips a day. That is why we must do all we 
can to strengthen our commitment to safety on our highways.
  I am encouraged by certain key features of H.R. 3419. By establishing 
a separate Motor Carrier Safety Administration, at long last we are 
making safety a priority. The bill directs the Secretary of 
Transportation to develp a long term strategy for improving commercial 
motor vehicle, operator and carrier safety. It also directs the 
Secretary to implement safety improvement recommendations from the 
Inspector General, and it calls for the development of staffing 
standards for motor carrier safety inspectors at our international 
border areas, an important element for California.
  In addition, strengthening the Commercial Driver License regulations 
by explicitly directing the disqualification of any commercial driver 
found to have caused a death because of negligent or criminal operation 
of a truck or bus and establishing stern penalties for foreign carriers 
who operate illegally beyond the current southern border commercial 
zone, are key improvements. Disqualifying these carriers on the spot 
will send a strong deterrent measure to any foreign trucking or bus 
companies who think that they can violate current motor carrier laws 
and regulations with impunity.
  However, I am concerned that H.R. 3419 is not stronger in terms of 
potential conflict of interest in the research conducted for this new 
administration. According to testimony before the Surface 
Transportation Subcommittee, in

[[Page S15005]]

1996, the Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) awarded more than $8 million 
to the trucking industry and its consultants to perform research on 
various issues, including driver fatigue and graduated licensing. I 
understand that such research can form the basis for future rulemakings 
governing the trucking industry.
  The new Motor Carrier Safety Administration must maintain a high 
degree of integrity and independence. I supported a provision that 
specifically forbids any research for rulemaking and other programs 
that is conducted by any entity with a vested economic interest in its 
outcome, and to forbid any individual who serves in a senior position 
within the new motor carrier agency from maintaining any affiliation 
with the trucking industry. H.R. 3419 includes a provision that directs 
the new motor carrier administrator to comply with the current Federal 
regulations regarding conflict of interest, and it also directs the 
administrator to conduct a study to determine whether compliance with 
these regulations is sufficient to avoid conflicts of interest. I look 
forward to the results of that study as well as any swift action by 
Congress to correct this problem if the study finds additional 
protection for conflicts of interest is warranted.
  H.R. 3419 would establish a separate administration for Motor Carrier 
Safety. I would prefer to transfer the OMC from the Federal Highway 
Administration to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) and avoid the creation of a separate modal administration. 
NHTSA already issues regulations for newly manufactured trucks, and in 
truck-car crashes 98 percent of the deaths are suffered by the 
passenger vehicle occupants.
  Nevertheless, today we have taken an important step toward building 
greater confidence in highway safety. The creation of a new 
administration dedicated to safety is a new direction that I hope will 
lead to improved safety for the traveling public.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would like to rectify some information 
entered into the Record during the debate on the Bankruptcy Reform Bill 
on November 5, 1999.
  A comprehensive bankruptcy study was cited during the course of 
debate. This study was conducted by Professors Marianne Culhane and 
Michaela White from Creighton University, an impressive institution of 
higher learning in my home State of Nebraska.
  When discussing this study, my colleague from Iowa referred to a GAO 
Report that reviewed four different bankruptcy studies, including the 
one written by Professors Culhane and White. It is my understanding 
some comments were made indicating that GAO challenged the methodology 
the Creighton professors used in conducting this study. After reviewing 
the GAO Report, that was not my understanding. In fact, the GAO Report 
specifically says, ``In our review, we found that the Creighton/ABI 
researchers prepared and analyzed their data in a careful, thorough 
manner.''
  In order to clarify the record and any misperceptions about the GAO's 
findings, I ask unanimous consent the following ``Scope and 
Methodology'' section of GAO Report, number 99-103 ``Personal 
Bankruptcy: Analysis of Four Reports on Chapter 7 Debtors' Ability to 
Pay'', be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record.

        GAO Report #99-103; Pages 5 and 6 Scope and Methodology

       To evaluate and compare the four reports' research 
     methodologies, we assessed the strengths and limitations, if 
     any, of each report's assumptions and methodology for 
     determining debtors' ability to pay and the amount of debt 
     that debtors could potentially repay. The comments and 
     observations in this report are based on our review of the 
     March 1998 and March 1999 Ernst & Young reports, the March 
     1999 Creighton/ABI report, and the January 1999 EOUST report; 
     some additional information we requested from each report's 
     authors; independent analyses using the Creighton/ABI 
     report's database; and our experience in research design and 
     evaluation. We reviewed specific aspects of each report's 
     methodology, including the proposed legislation on which the 
     report was based, how the bankruptcy cases used in the 
     analysis were selected, what types of assumptions were made 
     about debtors' and their debt repayment ability, how debtors' 
     income and allowable living expenses were determined, and 
     whether appropriate data analysis techniques were used. We 
     also assessed the similarities and differences in the 
     methodologies used in the four reports.
       In addition to reviewing the reports, we had numerous 
     contacts with the reports' authors. On March 16, 1999, we met 
     with one of the authors of the Creighton/ABI report, and on 
     March 25, 1999, we met with the authors of the two Ernst & 
     Young reports to discuss our questions and observations about 
     each report's methodology and assumptions. Following these 
     discussions, we created a detailed description of each 
     report's methodology (see app.I), which we sent to the 
     authors of each report for review and comment. On the basis 
     of the comments received, we amended our methodological 
     descriptions as appropriate. The authors of the Creighton/ABI 
     report responded to written questions we submitted. Ernst & 
     Young, Creighton/ABI, and EOUST provided additional details 
     on their methodologies and assumptions that were not fully 
     described in their reports. We did not verify the accuracy of 
     the data used in any of these reports back to the original 
     documents filed with the bankruptcy courts. However, the 
     Creighton/ABI authors provided us with a copy of the database 
     used in their analysis. Ernst & Young declined to provide a 
     copy of their database, citing VISA's proprietary interest in 
     the data. (VISA U.S.A. and MasterCard International sponsored 
     the Ernst & Young reports.) We received the EOUST report in 
     early April and, because of time constraints, did not request 
     the database for the report. We reviewed the Creighton/ABI 
     data and performed some analyses of our own to verify the 
     authors' categorization of data used in their analyses. In 
     our review, we found that the Creighton/ABI researchers 
     prepared and analyzed their data in a careful, thorough 
     manner.
       The team that reviewed the reports included specialists in 
     program evaluation, statistical sampling, and statistical 
     analysis from our General Government Division's Design, 
     Methodology, and Technical Assistance group. We did our work 
     between February and May 1999 in Washington, D.C., in 
     accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
     standards. On May 18, 1999, we provided a draft of our report 
     to Ernst & Young, the authors of the Creighton/ABI report, 
     and EOUST for comment. Each provided written comments on the 
     report. In addition, on May 28, 1999, we met with 
     representatives from Ernst & Young to discuss their comments 
     on the draft report. Ernst & Young and Creighton/ABI also 
     separately provided technical comments on the report, which 
     we have incorporated as appropriate. The Ernst & Young, 
     Creighton/ABI, and EOUST written comments are summarized at 
     the end of this letter and contained in appendixes III 
     through V.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, just like the rest of our health care 
delivery system, our nation's military health care delivery system 
cries out for reform. While both systems are plagued with rising costs 
and barriers to full access, the military health care delivery system 
is facing some very unique challenges. I intend to submit the 
``Contract With Our Service Members--Past and Present'' first thing 
next session. A principal objective of this Contract will be military 
health care reform.
  One of the critical challenges is how best to reconfigure the 
military health care delivery system so that it might continue to meet 
its military readiness and peace-time obligations at a time of 
continuous change for our base and force structure.
  This is a challenge with which I have been grappling for some time. 
In the process of deciding how to proceed, I have been meeting with, 
and hearing from, many military family members, veterans and military 
retirees from around the country. I was inundated with suggestions for 
reform. In every meeting and every letter, I encountered retired 
service men and women who have problems with every aspect of the 
military medical care system--with long waiting periods, with access to 
the right kind of care, with access to needed pharmaceutical drugs, and 
with the broken promise of lifetime health care for military retirees 
and their spouses. I heard these concerns expressed as I have traveled 
across the United States over the past several months.
  One of the areas of greatest concern among military retirees and 
their families is the ``broken promise'' of lifetime medical care, 
especially for those over age 65.
  I believe grappling with these issues presents a great challenge and 
demands our very best effort. Not lost on me is the urgent need to 
address the over-age 65 issue since there are reportedly 1,000 World 
War II and Korean veterans dying every day. It is imperative that as 
changes are made to our nation's military force and continue to be made 
in the future with regards to base structure, that Congress not only 
stay fixated on bringing health care costs under control, but that 
steps be taken

[[Page S15006]]

to retain the health care coverage so critical to our nation's active 
duty personnel, their families, retirees, and survivors. While the 
world situation necessitates a modified force and base structure 
transformed for the new millennium, it should not carry with it an 
abandonment of the responsibility that our nation has to assist those 
who have served our country to obtain access to the health care 
services they need.
  Make no mistake, retiree health care is a readiness issue, as well. 
Today's servicemembers are acutely aware of retirees' 
disenfranchisement from military health coverage, and exit surveys cite 
this issue with increasing frequency as one of the factors in members' 
decisions to leave service. In fact, a recent GAO study found that 
``access to medical and dental care in retirement'' was the number five 
career dissatisfier among active duty officers in retention-critical 
specialties.
  Failure to keep health care commitments is hurting service recruiting 
efforts as well. Traditionally, retirees have been the services' most 
effective recruiters, and their children and those of family friends 
have had a high propensity to serve. Unfortunately, increasing numbers 
of retirees who have seen the government renege on its ``lifetime 
health care'' promises have become reluctant to recommend service 
careers to their family members and friends. Restoring their confidence 
in their health care coverage will go a long way toward restoring this 
invaluable recruiting resource.
  One of the reasons that Congress has not implemented meaningful 
reform in the past is because of the cost of providing quality health 
care. Although Congress has increased the President's defense budget 
requests to attempt to meet our future needs, it has squandered 
billions each year on projects the military did not request and does 
not need. This year alone, Congress appropriated over $6 billion for 
wasteful, unnecessary, and low-priority projects that have absolutely 
no positive effect on preparing our military for future challenges.
  Congress also continues to refuse to close military bases that are 
not essential to our security, permitting politics to outweigh military 
readiness, at a cost to the taxpayer of nearly $7 billion each year. If 
Congress would allow the Pentagon to privatize or consolidate depot and 
base maintenance activities, savings of $2 billion each year could be 
achieved. In addition, Congress refuses to eliminate anti-competitive 
``Buy American'' restrictions, which could save almost $5.5 billion 
annually on defense contracts.
  These common sense reforms alone would free up more than $20 billion 
per year, which could be used to begin remedying our readiness 
shortfalls and provide once-and-for-all a quality health care delivery 
system for our aged military retirees.
  Additionally, most disgraceful is the fact that, while Congress 
wastes taxpayer money on obsolete infrastructure, unneeded weapons 
systems, and projects that have no meaningful value to the Armed 
Forces, it simultaneously refuses to adequately pay the nearly 12,000 
enlisted military personnel who are forced to subsist on food stamps.
  In October 1999, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the 
rest of the Joint Chiefs testified before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee on the state of the military and universally declared the 
year 2000 to be the year of health care reform. Although this was a 
critical step for the senior uniformed military leadership to 
acknowledge this thinking in their testimony to the Senate, it must not 
become our military's Y2K problem and fall prey to election year 
politics.
  On October 26, 1999 General Henry Shelton, Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services:
       Although we have done much over the past year to improve 
     readiness, much more needs to be done to sustain the 
     momentum. This year, for example, we intend to focus on 
     another component that affects personnel readiness, the 
     quality of our military medical system . . . . The Joint 
     Chiefs are fully committed to supporting the Department of 
     Defense efforts to improve both the fact and the perception 
     of military health care for all the beneficiaries. Those who 
     serve or have served proudly deserve quality care.

  One of the critical pieces of the last several years' laws on 
military health care was the institution of several limited pilot 
projects in Medicare subvention and FEHBP. As important as the select 
locations was the cooperation that was achieved between several 
agencies who were responsible for implementing the pilot project 
legislation devised by the Republican Congress. These pilot projects 
serve as important interim measures for health care reform and as a 
valuable comparisons of the strengths and weaknesses of the military 
health care delivery system. Moreover, valuable lessons can be learned 
from comparing the current state of the military health care program 
with those available in the private sector system that may have 
applicability to the military system, to lay the groundwork for a more 
comprehensive reform effort.
  The rush to implement military health care reform and the evaluation 
of current health care delivery pilot projects must be balanced with 
the need to provide critical health care to the over-65 military 
retirees and their families. Their angst towards losing any minimal 
health care they had from the time they retired to turning age-65 is 
multiplied on their 65th birthday. If this is to be the year of 
military health care, a key part of this effort must entail reassuring 
these older retirees that the Department of Defense will no longer deny 
or ignore their legitimate health care needs. By doing so, Congress 
also will be taking an essential step to reassure today's 
servicemembers that the government does, in fact, keep its recruiting 
and retention promises concerning health care and other career service 
benefits.
  The legislation that I am working on in the Senate would be the next 
step down the road to meaningful reform of our Nation's military health 
care delivery system. This legislation would offer the military retiree 
and his family several health care delivery plans to choose from. 
Having the choice to decide which health care plan works well is 
important for two reasons. One to be able to control overall health 
care reform costs and secondly, each retirees needs are different. Some 
military retirees may not mind driving 100 miles to a military 
treatment facility for health care as long as they have access to a 
viable, quality pharmaceutical plan. Other military retirees and their 
families may not be able to drive long distances for their primary 
health care needs and instead require a health care delivery plan that 
is much closer to their home. Another objective of this health care 
reform plan, is that in the event of another base closure round, any 
plan be portable and less dependent on any military hospital system.
  Some military retirees live near military installations and would be 
happy to use military care if they only had access to it. Others who 
live far from installations may be satisfied with the addition of a 
relatively low-cost prescription drug benefit. Still others desperately 
need full-coverage insurance such as FEHBP.
  I am working on another key health care bill with cosponsors 
Representative Norwood from Georgia and Representative Shows from 
Mississippi. I have worked closely with my dear friend and Medal of 
Honor recipient, Colonel Bud Day, over the years and he has helped me 
to understand how unfair our health care system is to our military 
retirees and the governments' failure to keep its promise to them. I 
believe that if we are to restore the credibility in our government we 
must begin by keeping our promises to our men and women in uniform, 
past and present.
  The health care reform plan that is enacted must also promote more 
efficiency in the military health care system. Right now our military 
health care system which offers limited health care benefits to those 
over-age 65 retirees is operating $800 million in the red. There are 
many efficiency practices that the beneficiaries have brought to my 
attention that would improve the military health care delivery system 
through: better billing practices, quality control of electronic forms 
processing, regular surveys of military health care beneficiaries, and 
bringing the various health care delivery systems under a single system 
could save hundreds of millions of dollars.
  The federal government must not abandon the health care coverage 
needs of our nation's military retirees, their families, and survivors. 
I will continue

[[Page S15007]]

to work over the next couple of months with The Military Coalition and 
The Military Veterans Alliance, representing nearly 10 million members, 
to enact comprehensive reform of the military health care system, which 
fulfills our obligation to our military retirees, and bolsters 
retention and readiness among today's servicemembers by assuring them 
that retention promises will be fulfilled once their active service is 
over.
  Mr. President, next year will be, in the words of the Joint Chiefs, 
the year of health care reform. I hope that my colleagues will join me 
in supporting the ``Contract With Our Service Members--Past and 
Present.'' A key objective of this Contract, legislation to reform our 
military health care system, must be successful if Congress is to 
restore the American people's faith in their government.
  Thank you and I yield the floor.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to offer a few comments about 
H.R. 1693, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) 
and clarify the overtime exemption for employees engaged in fire 
protection activities.
  This bipartisan bill was passed on the House Suspension Calendar 
without objection on November 4, 1999, and just passed the Senate under 
a unanimous consent agreement.
  Generally, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, workers are entitled 
to overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a given 
week. The FLSA contains an exemption for overtime, under Section 7(k), 
for employees of public agencies who are engaged in fire protection 
activities. This exemption allows employees engaged in fire protection 
activities some flexibility in scheduling their work hours. It also 
recognizes the extended periods of time that firefighters are often on 
duty by allowing firefighters to work up to 212 hours within a period 
of 28 consecutive days before triggering the overtime pay requirement.
  H.R. 1693 clarifies this firefighter exemption as it relates to 
emergency medical personnel. This bill provides that paramedics who are 
cross-trained/dual role firefighters, and work in a fire department and 
have the responsibility to perform both fire fighting and emergency 
medical services, be treated as firefighters for the purpose of Section 
7(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. H.R. 1693 does not create a new 
exemption from the FLSA, it merely clarifies the definition of 
firefighter.
  Supported by the International Association of Fire Fighters and the 
International Association of Fire Chiefs, H.R. 1693 ensures that 
unreasonable burdens are not placed on fire departments when accounting 
for hours worked. In effect, it elucidates the original intent of the 
Section 7(k) provision of the FLSA, the provisions that apply to 
firefighters who perform normal fire fighting duties, and hopefully the 
Senate's passage of this clarification addresses the concerns of the 
interested parties.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this legislation is necessary to resolve 
the confusion in current law over whether firefighters who are also 
trained as paramedics are covered by the exemption in section 7(k) of 
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  This bill defines ``employee engaged in fire protection activities'' 
to make clear that fire fighters who perform fire fighting duties are 
covered by the exemption, regardless of the number of hours they spend 
in responding to Emergency Medical Services calls. This legislation 
restores the original intent of the 1986 law that created the section 
exemption.
  Significantly, the legislation also states that in order to qualify 
for the exemption, an employee must have the ``legal authority and 
responsibility to engage in fire suppression.'' This phrase was added 
for the express purpose of assuring that single-role emergency medical 
personnel are not covered by the exemption. Simply sending paramedics 
to the fire academy will not automatically bring them under the 
exemption. Fire suppression must be an integral part of the 
responsibilities for all employees covered by the exemption.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor and to 
support the passage of the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement 
Act, S. 335.
  I congratulate the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, for 
her successful efforts to get this legislation adopted to curb 
deceptive mailings. She has provided strong leadership and sound 
guidance on this important issue. As Chair of the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations, Senator Collins has worked effectively 
to examine the problems relating to sweepstakes and promotional 
mailings and develop this legislation to strengthen our laws. I applaud 
her work in crafting this bill and her continuing efforts to protect 
consumers.
  The Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act includes new 
safeguards to protect consumers against misleading and dishonest 
sweepstakes and other promotional mailings, including government look-
alike mailings. The bill grants additional investigative and 
enforcement authority to the United States Postal Service to stop 
unscrupulous mailings and establishes standards for all sweepstakes 
mailings by requiring certain disclosures on each mail piece.
  This bill is an important step toward the prevention of deception in 
sweepstakes and other promotional mailings. I compliment Senator 
Collins on her efforts, and I am pleased to support the passage of the 
Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is 
prepared to pass the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission Act of 
1999. The year 2009 is the 200th anniversary of President Lincoln's 
birth, and this measure would establish a commission to study and 
recommend to the Congress activities that are appropriate to celebrate 
that anniversary.
  It is most fitting that we make these arrangements to honor Abraham 
Lincoln, one of our nation's wisest and most courageous former 
Presidents, on the bicentennial of his birth. The son of a Kentucky 
frontiersman, Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809 in a log 
cabin. From these humble beginnings, he went on to become the sixteenth 
President of the United States. Today, he is perhaps best remembered 
for leading the Union through a turbulent Civil War and for issuing the 
Emancipation Proclamation, which freed the nation's slaves.
  Few people have a greater appreciation for President Lincoln than the 
residents of my home state of Illinois. President Lincoln spent about 
eight years in the Illinois State Legislature, and he also represented 
Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives for a term. The only home 
that Abraham Lincoln owned is located in Springfield, Illinois. Today, 
people from all parts of the United States travel to Springfield to see 
Abraham Lincoln's family home, tour the Old State Capital where Mr. 
Lincoln said ``a house divided cannot stand,'' and visit his final 
resting place in Springfield's Oak Ridge Cemetery.
  The Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission Act, which originated in 
the House of Representatives, provides for the establishment of a 
national commission to recommend ``fitting and proper'' activities to 
celebrate the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth. The commission would be 
composed of fifteen members, including at least one person appointed by 
the President on the recommendation of the Governor of Illinois.
  Congress created a similar commission in anticipation of the 
centennial of Lincoln's birth in 1909. That year, this country 
celebrated President Lincoln's birthday in a big way: Lincoln's image 
appeared on a postage stamp, his birthday became a national holiday, 
Congress passed legislation which led to the Lincoln Memorial's 
construction, and the White House approved the minting of a Lincoln 
penny. It is appropriate that we again prepare for the anniversary of 
his birth by passing this measure to establish the Abraham Lincoln 
Bicentennial Commission.
  I close by noting that the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission 
Act of 1999 has tremendous support in both chambers of Congress. The 
bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 411 to 2 last 
month. The Senate version is the product of cooperation among Senators 
Hatch, Leahy, Durbin and me. I also commend Judiciary Chairman Hatch, 
ranking member Leahy, and their staffs for their efforts to help pass 
this important bill.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there are obviously many issues that one 
might

[[Page S15008]]

discuss in the context of the omnibus spending bill that is currently 
pending before the Senate. I would like to take a few moments to 
mention two very important issues that have been included in the 
pending legislation, the IMF debt initiative and payment of U.N. 
arrears.
  I was extremely pleased that the House and Senate leadership were 
able to reach agreement earlier this week with Secretary of Treasury 
Larry Summers and other administration officials on legislative 
language that will permit the IMF's historic debt relief initiative to 
move forward. Just a few short days ago, it seemed unthinkable that the 
Congress and the Executive would reach a compromise to permit the 
United States to support the IMF debt initiative for highly indebted 
poor nations around the globe before the end of this session of 
Congress.
  The provisions contained in the pending legislation authorize U.S. 
support for IMF participation in the international debt reduction 
initiative by permitting the United States to vote for the immediate 
non-market sale of the amount of gold necessary to generate profits of 
$3.1 billion; permit the use of 64% of the interest earned on the 
invested profits to be used for debt relief; authorize the U.S. share 
of a special reserve account at the IMF to also be used for debt relief 
purposes, and appropriate $123 million for FY 2000 bilateral U.S. debt 
reduction programs that will be undertaken in conjunction with the 
international debt initiative.
  With the enactment of this bill into law, the United States will be 
able to make a major step forward toward achieving the commitments made 
by President Clinton and other so called G-7 heads of state at this 
year's Cologne Summit. Among other things, this will enable the IMF, 
for the first time, to utilize its own resources to participate in 
international efforts to reduce the mounting debt burden that has been 
a yoke around the necks of the most impoverished nations of the world--
countries which are home to nearly half a billion people. With this 
debt relief and the economic reforms that will be an integral part of 
the IMF's multilateral initiative, the poorest countries in Africa and 
Latin America can now approach the next millennium with prospects for a 
brighter future. I am extremely pleased that bipartisanship ultimately 
won the day during negotiations of this important issue.
  Another important issue with major international implications has 
also finally been successfully resolved, namely the authorization and 
appropriation of $926 million in long overdue U.S. payments to the 
United Nations. While I would have preferred to see this issue treated 
on its own merits, rather than linked to restrictions on bilateral 
funding for family planning programs of foreign private and 
international population organizations, at least this issue has been 
finally resolved, and the United States will not lose its vote at the 
United Nations.
  I believe that extremist elements in the Congress jeopardized United 
States national security and foreign policy interests by holding up our 
payments to the UN for more than three years. They held this money 
hostage to the unrelated issue of international population programs. I 
am not happy with the compromise that had to be agreed to in order to 
resolve this issue. It is un-American in my view to legislatively seek 
to limit the free speech of foreign non-governmental organizations with 
respect to local family planning laws as a condition for receiving 
United States funding for their important family planning programs. 
Were I to have had the opportunity to vote on this language as a free 
standing amendment I would have certainly voted against it, as would a 
majority of the Senate. Unfortunately, because it has been included in 
the omnibus conference report we do not have that option. We must 
balance our distaste for this provision against the many positive 
programs that will be funded, including UN arrears, once this bill 
becomes law. Having done so, I will vote in favor of the pending 
legislation.
  Mr. President, the IMF, the United Nations and its related 
specialized organizations--UNICEF, the International Labor 
Organization, the World Health Organization, the Commission for Human 
Rights el al.--have a daily impact of the lives of the world's people--
and it is an impact for the better. Without doubt, these international 
organizations further United States national security and foreign 
policy interests through their programs and initiatives. 
Representatives of the United Nations are on the ground in the far 
comers of the world--in East Timor, Kosovo, Haiti, and Iraq to mention 
but a few ongoing missions of the United Nations. The United States is 
able to maximize its interests and advance its foreign policy agenda at 
much lower cost thanks to our participation in this important 
international organization.
  There are clearly many reasons for voting to support this spending 
bill, despite its many flaws. The IMF Debt Relief Initiative and 
payment of UN arrears are two of the more compelling ones in my 
opinion. I urge my colleagues to support this bill when it comes to a 
vote later today.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today, the United States Senate unanimously 
passed much needed legislation to protect some of America's most 
threatened historic sites, the Vicksburg Campaign Trail and the Corinth 
battlefield.
  S. 710, the Vicksburg Campaign Trail Battlefields Preservation Act of 
1999, is a bipartisan measure that authorizes a feasibility study on 
the preservation of Civil War battlefields and related sites in the 
four states along the Vicksburg Campaign Trail.
  As my colleagues know, Vicksburg served as a gateway to the 
Mississippi River during the Civil War. The eighteen month campaign for 
the ``Gibraltar of the Confederacy'' included over 100,000 soldiers and 
involved a number of skirmishes and major battles in Mississippi, 
Arkansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee.
  The Mississippi Heritage Trust and the National Trust for Historic 
Preservation named the Vicksburg Campaign Trail as being among the most 
threatened sites in the state and the nation.
  S. 710 would begin the process of preserving the important landmarks 
in the four state region that warrant further protection. I appreciate 
the cosponsorship of Chairman Murkowski, Chairman Thomas, and Senators 
Landrieu, Breaux, Cochran, Hutchinson, and Craig on this measure.
  Mr. President, the Senate also approved S.1117, the Corinth 
Battlefield Preservation Act of 1999, a measure that establishes the 
Corinth Unit of the Shiloh National Military Park.
  The battle of Shiloh was actually part of the Union Army's overall 
effort to seize Corinth. This small town was important to both the 
Confederacy and the Union. Corinth's railway was vitally important to 
both sides as it served as a gateway for moving troops and supplies 
north and south, east and west. The overall campaign led to some of the 
bloodiest battles in the Western Theater. In an effort to protect the 
city, Southern forces built a series of earthworks and fortifications, 
many of which remain, at least for now, in pristine condition. 
Unfortunately, the National Park Service in its Profiles of America's 
Most Threatened Civil War Battlefields, concluded that many of the 
sites associated with the siege of Corinth are threatened.
  S. 1117 would give Corinth its proper place in American history by 
formally linking the city's battlefield sites with the Shiloh National 
Military Park.
  Mr. President, I want to thank Senators Robb, Cochran, and Jeffords 
for cosponsoring this measure.
  I would also like to express my appreciation to Chairman Thomas for 
his ever vigilant efforts on parks legislation, and in particular, for 
moving both the Vicksburg Campaign Trail and Corinth battlefield bills 
forward.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize Chairman 
Murkowski for his continued stewardship over the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. President, I also want to recognize Ken P'Pool, Deputy State 
Historic Preservation Officer for Mississippi; Rosemary Williams, 
Chairman of the Siege and Battle of Corinth Commission; John Sullivan, 
President of the Friends of the Vicksburg Campaign and Historic Trail; 
and Terry Winschel and Woody Harrell of the United States Park Service 
for their support and guidance on these important preservation 
measures.
  Lastly, I would like to recognize several staff members including 
Randy Turner, Jim O'Toole, and Andrew Lundquist from the Senate Energy

[[Page S15009]]

Committee, Darcie Tomasallo from Senate Legislative Counsel, and Stan 
Harris, Angel Campbell, Steven Wall, Jim Sartucci, and Steven Apicella 
from my office, for their efforts to preserve Mississippi's and 
America's historic resources.
  Mr. President, as a result of the Senate's action today, our children 
will be better able to understand and appreciate the full historic, 
social, cultural, and economic impact of the Vicksburg Campaign Trail 
and the Siege and Battle of Corinth.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleagues to join 
Senator Jeffords and me in supporting the enactment of the pending bill 
which clarifies the status of church welfare plans under state 
insurance law. These plans provide health and other benefits to 
ministers and lay workers at churches and church-controlled 
institutions. It is estimated that more than 1 million individuals rely 
on these programs for their health benefits.
  Today, the status of these programs under state insurance laws is 
uncertain. This legislation merely provides that church welfare plans 
are not engaged in the business of insurance for purposes of state 
insurance laws that relate to licensing, solvency, or insolvency.
  In addition, this legislation clarifies that a church plan is single 
employer plan for purposes of applying state insurance laws. The 
language in the bill is intended to eliminate concerns by network 
providers and insurance companies about the legal status of a church 
plan under state insurance law. By enacting this legislation, networks 
and insurance companies otherwise doing business in a state will be 
able to offer to church plans the same services they offer to corporate 
benefit programs.
  Mr. President, I first became aware of the need for this legislation 
when I heard from Bishop Morris from my own state of Alabama. He 
explained that too frequently church plans are denied access to network 
providers that offer discounted rates. He also explained that from 
time-to-time questions arise about the legal right of church plans to 
provide coverage under state insurance law. He asked me to look into 
what I could do help clarify the legal status of health plans 
maintained by churches and synagogues. It seemed like a reasonable 
request since Congress has authorized churches to maintain 
denominational benefit programs. However, this is also a technical area 
of the law that involves constitutional issues of separation of church 
and state. It also involves technical issues regarding insurance and 
benefit laws.
  This legislation has been carefully crafted with the help of the 
church benefits community represented by the Church Alliance, a 
coalition of more than 30 denominational benefit programs. While they 
may differ on questions of theology, it is obvious that they are united 
in their efforts to serve those who serve their respective churches and 
synagogues. I also want to commend the National Association of 
Insurance Commissioners for their assistance in helping to work out the 
language of this bill. It is obvious that State Insurance Commissioners 
respect the right of churches to maintain benefit programs that serve 
clergy and lay workers.
  Mr. President, churches should be commended for the commitment they 
have demonstrated, in some cases for more than a hundred years, to 
offer comprehensive benefit programs to their employees. These programs 
have many unique design and structural features reflecting the fact 
that they are maintained by denominations. As we consider health care 
legislation in Congress, I believe that it is important for all of us 
to recognize these unique features and to be mindful of the important 
role these church-maintained programs perform within their respective 
churches.
  In order to give my colleagues and the public a better understanding 
of this legislation, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section 
of the bill appear immediately after my remarks.
  Mr. President, on behalf of ministers, rabbis, and church lay workers 
across this country who receive benefit coverage from church plans, I 
urge passage of this legislation.

 Clarification of Church Welfare Plan Status Under State Insurance Law

       Section 1 provides a statement of purpose. This section 
     provides that the only purpose of this Act is to clarify the 
     status of church welfare plans under certain specified state 
     insurance law requirements and the status of a church welfare 
     plan as a plan sponsored by a single employer. This Act 
     clarified the status of church plans under state law. It also 
     addresses the problem of health insurance issuers refusing to 
     do business with church plans because of concern that church 
     plans could be classified as unlicensed entities.
       Subsection 2(a) provides that a church welfare plan is 
     deemed to be sponsored by a single employer that does not 
     engage in the business of insurance for the purposes of state 
     insurance laws described in subsection (b). This subsection 
     permits network providers and insurance companies to 
     establish the same contractual relationships with a church 
     plan as they are allowed to establish with any single 
     employer plan covered under the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act (ERISA) in such state.
       Subsection 2(b) describes state insurance laws that (1) 
     would require a church welfare plan or an entity that can 
     administer or fund such a plan (only to the extent that it 
     engages in such activity) to be licensed; or (2) relate to 
     solvency or insolvency (including participation in guaranty 
     funds and associations). For example, state insurance laws 
     that impose reserve requirements or require posting of 
     security would be described in this subsection. Similarly the 
     plan is deemed to satisfy the licensing requirements of state 
     insurance law.
       Subsection 2(c)(1) defines the term ``church plan.''
       Subsection 2(c)(2) defines the term ``reimburses costs from 
     general church assets.'' The affect of this definition is to 
     provide that church welfare plans are not engaging in the 
     business of insurance for certain state insurance law 
     provisions otherwise described in this subsection 2(b).
       Subsection 2(c)(3) defines the term ``welfare plan.'' This 
     subsection clarifies that the term ``welfare plan'' only 
     includes church plans and does not include HMOs, health 
     insurance issuers and other entities doing business with 
     church plans or organizations sponsoring or maintaining the 
     plan.
       Subsection 2(d) provides that while the Act exempts church 
     welfare plans from state licensing requirements, states 
     preserve authority to enforce state insurance law provisions 
     that remain applicable to church plans. This subsection deems 
     welfare plans to be licensed for purposes of all other 
     insurance laws not specifically excluded in subsection 2(b). 
     This subsection is necessary because under some state 
     insurance laws, only entities that are actually licensed can 
     be subject to enforcement action under any provision of such 
     law.
       Subsection 2(e) provides that while subsections (a) and (b) 
     deem that a church plan reimburses costs or provides 
     insurance from general church assets for the purpose of 
     determining its status under certain state insurance laws, 
     the rights of plan participants and beneficiaries, including 
     those who actually make plan contributions, are not otherwise 
     affected by the application of section 2.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
newspaper article appear in the Record following my statement on H.R. 
1180, Work Incentives/Tax Extenders Conference Report.

                [From the New York Times, Nov. 12, 1999]

                   A Budget Too Flush To Fight About

                          (By Alice M. Rivlin)

       Washington--The United States political system, arguably 
     the most effective in the world, has an uncanny penchant for 
     making its successes look like failures. The wrangling now 
     going on in Washington over the federal budget is an ugly, 
     confusing spectacle--long on finger-pointing and gotcha 
     moves, short on conciliation and statesmanship. As the 
     vetoes, gimmickry and accusations of ``raiding Social 
     Security'' fly up and down Pennsylvania Avenue, it is hard to 
     remember that the battle is over marginal adjustments in an 
     increasingly responsible fiscal policy.
       The federal budget is already in substantial surplus--
     revenues exceeded expenditures by about $120 billion in the 
     fiscal year 1999, which would have seemed like a miracle only 
     a few years ago--and the public, polls indicate, is pushing 
     politicians to raise the bar. The new goal, harder but 
     entirely appropriate, is an even bigger surplus, sufficient 
     to reduce the debt and help the economy prepare for the rapid 
     aging of the population.
       Acrimony over small changes in a successfully balanced 
     budget is a welcome change from the 1980's, when there was so 
     much more to be acrimonious about. The huge deficits of that 
     decade were clear evidence of policy failure.
       The stunning success of this decade began when President 
     George Bush and the leaders of Congress hammered out an 
     agreement in 1990 that raised some taxes and set explicit 
     caps on future discretionary spending. The effect was not 
     immediately apparent because the recession the next year cut 
     revenues, but the ground-work for a falling deficit had been 
     laid.
       The goal of President Clinton's budget plan in 1993, 
     extended the caps and raised some taxes, was to cut the 
     deficit in half in four years. The deficit for the fiscal 
     year 1992 was $290 billion--a $50 billion surplus in Social 
     Security, offset by a $340 billion deficit in the rest of the 
     budget. No one thought that

[[Page S15010]]

     getting to overall balance was a goal realistic enough to 
     talk about, let alone reaching balance without counting the 
     Social Security surplus.
       But now that the overall budget has been balanced for two 
     years, it's time to follow the public's leaning and adopt the 
     more ambitious objective of balancing the budget without 
     counting the Social Security surplus.
       Paradoxically, although this raising of the bar is highly 
     desirable, the reasons have little to do with Social 
     Security.
       Two or three decades from now, we will have a much higher 
     ratio of retirees to workers, and the standard of living of 
     both groups will depend on making the economy grow faster, so 
     more goods and services are available to be consumed by 
     everyone. Running a larger government surplus would help the 
     economy grow. It would reduce the national debt, put downward 
     pressure on interest rates and encourage new investment.
       It doesn't matter much whether the surplus is in the Social 
     Security fund or the rest of the budget; it is the debt 
     reduction that helps the economy grow. Explaining the raising 
     of the bar as ``not spending the Social Security surplus'' is 
     a convenient way of suggesting a connection between the aging 
     of the population and the need for growth. But the current 
     budget debate does not affect the status of the Social 
     Security fund or the rights of beneficiaries in any way. 
     That's a debate for another (post-election) day.
       If political discourse were more civil, Congress and the 
     president would have settled their differences over the 
     fiscal year 2000 budget long before now, probably by enacting 
     modest increases in the spending caps and celebrating the 
     fact that the surplus is larger than anyone expected. Then 
     they would have gone on to explain why an even bigger surplus 
     would be a good thing for future growth.
       A growing surplus can only be achieved by restraining 
     spending growth and avoiding a major tax cut. A tax cut would 
     hurt prospects for economic growth by encouraging more 
     consumer spending and forcing the Federal Reserve to raise 
     interest rates to avoid inflation.
       With any luck, the new budget will be wrapped up in a few 
     days and Congress will go on to other business. The public 
     will breathe a small sigh of relief but will not realize that 
     it ought to be celebrating.
       The good news is that the budget surplus is growing, no 
     significant tax cut is being considered, and politicians are 
     beginning to notice that the public wants them to act 
     responsibly for the long term and reduce the federal debt.
       That's a lot of good news. It's a shame the process is so 
     ugly.


                          noaa vessel rainier

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, during the last month of negotiations on 
the FY00 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations conference report, 
there has been much discussion between the Alaska delegation and 
Commerce Department officials regarding where to homeport the Rainier. 
The Rainier is one of four hydrographic survey vessels currently 
homeported in Seattle. However, the Rainier spends nearly all of its 
time performing hydrographic surveys in Southeast Alaska, where the 
need for hydrographic surveys is great. Substantial amounts of time and 
money are wasted every time the Rainier transits the 650 miles between 
Seattle and Southeast Alaska.
  Alaska has more than half of the United States' coastline, and no 
State is more dependent on marine transportation. Nonetheless, most of 
southeast Alaska lacks adequate hydrographic surveys. In fact, more 
than half of NOAA's critical backlog of survey areas is in Alaska. Much 
of that backlog is in southeast Alaska, where three cruise ships ran 
aground this summer. These ships ran aground in critical backlog areas 
and other areas that are literally not on the map. New coastline opens 
up every time a receding glacier creates a new inlet, giving vessels 
access to totally uncharted waters.
  Chairman Young of the House Resources Committee met personally with 
Commerce Secretary Daley on this issue recently. The Secretary agreed 
that Alaska was an appropriate home for the Rainier. The city of 
Ketchikan has offered to make space available for the Rainier and to 
provide $300,000 cash to offset the one-time cost of the move. Moving 
this vessel to Ketchikan makes good fiscal sense and good policy sense. 
I urge the Secretary to relocate the Rainier to Ketchikan at once.


                         pacific salmon treaty

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, I would like to explain the provisions relating to Pacific 
salmon and the Pacific Salmon Treaty included in the conference report 
for the fiscal year 2000 Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations bill. 
The conference report provides funding to implement the 1999 Pacific 
Salmon Treaty Agreement between the United States and Canada and for 
Pacific coastal salmon recovery efforts in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, 
and California. Section 623 of the conference report authorizes this 
funding and addresses other issues which are critical to the success of 
the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement.
  Section 623(a) establishes the Northern Boundary and Transboundary 
Rivers Restoration and Enhancement Fund and the Southern Boundary 
Restoration and Enhancement Fund. The 1999 Agreement requires the 
United States to capitalize these two funds at $75,000,000 and 
$65,000,000, respectively, over the next 4 years. Interest earned from 
these funds will be spent each year to develop better information to 
support resource management, to rehabilitate and restore marine and 
freshwater habitat, and to enhance wild stock production. This 
investment will complement a C$400,000,000 Canadian investment in 
habitat restoration and license buyback programs.
  Each fund will be managed by a bilateral committee of three United 
States and three Canadian representatives. Appropriately, the three 
United States representatives on the Northern Fund Committee are 
Alaskans: Alaska's Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner to the Pacific 
Salmon Commission and the Regional Administrator of the Alaska Region 
of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Likewise, the three United 
States representatives on the Southern Fund Committee are from the 
Lower 48: one representative of the States of Washington and Oregon; 
one representative of the treaty Indian tribes; and the Regional 
Administrator of the Northwest Region of the National Marine Fisheries 
Service. I expect that the Northern Fund Committee will consult with 
the Northern Panel of the Pacific Salmon Commission on funding 
proposals prior to making its decisions. Likewise, the Southern Fund 
Committee should consult with the Southern Panel.
  Section 623(b) implements the 1999 Agreement by addressing several 
conditions to that agreement. First, it provides that the $20,000,000 
appropriated to capitalize the Northern Fund and the Southern Fund will 
not be made available until two events occur. First, the parties to the 
Boldt-related litigation must be sign and file stipulations staying 
that litigation for the duration of the 1999 Agreement. Second, the 
Secretary of Commerce must determine that the conduct of Alaska's 
fisheries under the 1999 Agreement, without further clarification or 
modification of the management regimes contained in the 1999 Agreement, 
do not cause jeopardy to salmon species listed under the Endangered 
Species Act. If the Secretary of Commerce requires alterations, 
modifications, or any other changes to the fishery management regimes 
contained in the Treaty, this condition is not satisfied.
  The 1999 Agreement is expressly conditioned on both of these 
requirements being met. The document titled ``Understanding of United 
States Negotiators,'' signed June 22, 1999, by eight United States 
negotiators, describes the stipulations to be filed, extended, or 
otherwise addressed for the duration of the 1999 Agreement. Similarly, 
the transmittal letter which accompanied the 1999 Agreement, signed 
June 23, 1999 by the Chief Negotiators for the United States and 
Canada, states that the 1999 agreement is conditioned on whether the 
conduct of Alaska's fisheries under the Treaty violates the Endangered 
Species Act. It is important to note that Congress has every reason to 
believe Alaska's fisheries do not cause jeopardy to listed salmon 
stocks. Alaska's fisheries operated under a ``no jeopardy'' finding 
before our fishermen gave up 25 percent of their Chinook catch in order 
to get a deal on the 1999 Agreement. To address process concerns, this 
subsection requires the parties to request that the court enter the 
stipulations before the end of the year, and that the court enter the 
stipulations by March 1, 2000.
  Sections 623(b)(3) and 623(b)(4) specify conditions under which the 
Secretary of Commerce may ``initiate or reinitiate'' consultation on 
Alaska Fisheries under the Endangered Species Act. Subsections (b)(3) 
and (b)(4) address any consultation on Alaska fisheries which is 
commenced after the initial consultation required in subsection (b)(1). 
By using the words ``initiate or

[[Page S15011]]

reinitiate,'' Congress has addressed both those species which are 
currently listed under the Endangered Species Act as well as any 
species listed under ESA in the future. Therefore, before the Secretary 
of Commerce may initiate consultation on any listed species, including 
any species listed after this Act has passed, and before the Secretary 
may reinitiate a previously conducted consultation, the conditions in 
subsections (b)(3) and (b)(4) of section 623 must be met.

  Section 623(b)(3) requires the Secretary of Commerce to issue a 
jeopardy determination on Southern United States fisheries before he 
may initiate or reinitiate consultation on Alaska fisheries. Section 
623(b) defines Southern United States fisheries as the directed Pacific 
salmon fisheries in Washington, Oregon, and the Snake River basin of 
Idaho that are subject to the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Subsection (b)(3) 
will also require the Secretary to develop the maximum sustainable 
yield (MSY) data or other escapement data necessary to make such a 
determination. The Secretary should work with the Pacific Salmon 
Commission to develop this information.
  Section 623(b)(4) requires the Secretary of Commerce to provide the 
Pacific Salmon Commission a reasonable opportunity to implement the 
1999 Agreement including, if necessary, the weak stock provisions in 
the 1999 Agreement, and to make a determination that the 1999 Agreement 
will not meet MSY goals before he may initiate or reinitiate 
consultation on Alaska fisheries under ESA. The phrase ``reasonable 
opportunity'' is intended to provide sufficient time for the 1999 
Agreement to work. If the Pacific Salmon Commission implements the weak 
stock provisions, the phrase ``reasonable opportunity'' is intended to 
provide sufficient time for the weak stock provisions to work as well. 
A reasonable opportunity will encompass several life cycles of the 
salmon under consideration.
  Subsection (b)(4) purposefully adopts the recovery standard contained 
in the Pacific Salmon Treaty. This standard requires that the weak 
stock provisions return escapements as expeditiously as possible to 
maximum sustainable yield or other biologically-based escapement 
objectives agreed to by the Pacific Salmon Commission. This subsection 
recognizes that conservation is the foremost tenet of the Pacific 
Salmon Treaty. The Treaty also recognizes the importance of the salmon 
fisheries to the social, cultural, and economic well-being of the West 
Coast. Therefore, the Treaty seeks to satisfy its conservation 
objective with minimum disruption to the commercial, tribal, and sport 
fisheries. Recognizing these, objectives, the determination of whether 
escapement objectives have been met as expeditiously as possible must 
be made over a reasonable period of time, likely encompassing several 
life cycles of the salmon species under consideration.
  The most important feature of this law is that it requires the 
Secretary to delay the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act until 
the Pacific Salmon Commission has an opportunity to implement the 
Treaty and, if necessary, the weak stock provisions of the Treaty. This 
later-enacted law relieves the Secretary of his duty to apply the 
Endangered Species Act during the time the Commission is implementing 
the Treaty and the weak stock provisions. This is important because the 
Commission is better able to recover weak stocks using the Treaty than 
is the Secretary using the Endangered Species Act. The Commission can 
require harvest restrictions in Canada, where up to half of the 
coastwide Chinook harvest is caught. Unlike the Pacific Salmon Treaty, 
the Endangered Species Act does not apply in Canada. Subsection (b)(4) 
recognizes the important role the Pacific Salmon Commission should play 
in the recovery of weak stocks by ensuring that the Commission has the 
opportunity to fully implement the weak stock provisions of the Pacific 
Salmon Treaty.
  Section 623(c) makes needed changes to the voting structure of the 
Pacific Salmon Commission. The Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985 
required the three voting United States Commissioners to reach 
unanimous agreement before making a decision on behalf of the United 
States. This requirement was put in place without knowing how 
disruptive it would prove to subsequent negotiations. In practice, it 
has allowed Canadian negotiators to leverage northern and southern U.S. 
interest against each other. Subsection (c) prevents this unintended 
consequence by providing that the southern U.S. interests represent the 
United States on southern fisheries and Alaska represents the United 
States on northern fisheries. In fact, the 1999 Agreement itself did 
not take shape until Alaska and Canada were able to negotiate northern 
fisheries issues without interference from southern interests. Chinook 
salmon, which can migrate through northern and southern jurisdictions, 
are exempt from this provision.
  Section 623(d) authorizes $20,000,000 total to capitalize the 
Northern Fund and the Southern Fund. To meet a condition of the 1999 
Agreement, these amounts will not be released until stipulations have 
been signed and court orders requested in certain litigation involving 
the application of tribal fishing rights. Subsection (d) also 
authorizes $58,000,000 for salmon recovery efforts in Alaska, 
Washington, Oregon, and California. Amounts appropriated to the four 
States are subject to a 25 percent non-federal match requirement. 
States may meet this requirement with cash or other in-kind 
contributions supported by existing state funding.
  I understand Washington State and Oregon will use their shares of 
this funding to address the significant habitat issues they face in 
those States. Alaska has neither enjoyed the benefits nor suffered the 
consequence of extensive development inside its borders, although some 
would say that we have suffered the consequences of development 
elsewhere through the harvest restrictions our fishermen have endured 
over the years. I expect that in addition to habitat restoration, 
Alaska will participate in other programs consistent with Treaty 
implementation, such as marketing initiatives. Alaska also has the 
authority to participate in salmon initiatives in other States and on 
tribal, lands. Many of the tribes will likely use their funding to 
participate in demonstration projects on supplementation including the 
use of Mitchell Act hatcheries to increase production of wild stocks. A 
close analysis of NMFS's artificial propagation policy may lead to 
different policies which help meet the recovery goals outlined in the 
Pacific Salmon Treaty. I look forward to the results of the States and 
tribal efforts.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, one of the bills that will pass today as 
part of an Energy and Natural Resources Committee package is S. 769, 
which provides a final settlement on certain debts owed by the city of 
Dickinson, North Dakota to the Bureau of Reclamation. The legislation, 
which was introduced by Senator Kent Conrad and myself, is virtually 
identical to that introduced during the last Congress.
  The Dickinson Dam Bascule Gates Settlement Act (S. 769) will afford 
long overdue relief to the citizens of Dickinson. Let me briefly 
explain why the debt liquidation is needed and appropriate. For one 
thing, the Bureau of Reclamation built a faulty project. The debt was 
incurred by the city of Dickinson for construction of a dam with gate 
structures which never worked properly. In addition, the need for the 
bascule gates as regulating structures to help provide a reliable local 
water supply was eclipsed by the construction of the Southwest 
Pipeline. The pipeline is part of the Garrison Diversion Project which 
is managed by the same Bureau of Reclamation.
  Consequently, it makes no sense for the city of Dickinson to have two 
water supply systems when it needs only one--especially when the first 
system was a faulty one. The city has already repaid more than $1.2 
million for the bascule gates, even though they now provide virtually 
no benefit to the city.
  The legislation itself is actually quite simple. It would permit the 
Secretary of the Interior to accept one final payment of $300,000 from 
the city of Dickinson in place of a series of payments, totaling about 
$1.5 million, required by city's current repayment contract. The final 
payment may be adjusted for payments made after June 2, 1998.
  The bill also clarifies that the city of Dickinson will be 
responsible for up to

[[Page S15012]]

$15,000 in annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. This amount 
represents the average costs for O&M on the gate structures over the 
past 15 years. The bill as introduced was not explicit on this point 
and Senator Conrad and I have worked with the Energy Committee on an 
amendment that is part of the reported bill.
  I want to thank Chairman Frank Murkowski, Ranking Member Jeff 
Bingaman, Subcommittee Chairman Gordon Smith, and their staffs for 
their cooperation and assistance. I also want to underscore the 
leadership of Senator Conrad in developing this legislation and the 
excellent work of his Deputy Legislative Director, Kirk Johnson. May I 
also commend Dickinson Mayor Fred Gengler and City Administrator Greg 
Sund for their help and persistence in seeking a fair resolution to 
this matter.


                       TECHNICAL EDIT TO H.R. 486

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as the prime sponsor of S. 1547, the Senate 
companion bill to H.R. 486, I would like to make remarks on a technical 
edit to H.R. 486. I believe Sec. 3(f)(1) of Sec. 5008 needs some 
clarification. Subsection (1)(D) states very clearly that the 
``Commission shall act to preserve the contours of low-power television 
licensees pending the final resolution of a class A application.'' The 
Commission's function to preserve the protected contours is very clear. 
But creating separate subsections for the certification and application 
processes may have created some uncertainty regarding the timing of 
when the Commission should begin to provide this protection. I want to 
assure my colleagues that I agree with the prime sponsors of H.R. 486 
that the front-end certification process is an integral first step in 
the application process. It is clearly our intent that as soon as the 
Commission is in receipt of an acceptable certification notice, it 
should protect the contours of this station until final resolution of 
that application. Of course, this provision does not exempt licensees 
from other provision of this act.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for those who may wonder why H.R. 3427, 
which was deemed enacted as a separate law in H.R. 3194, the D.C. 
Appropriations bill is called the ``Admiral James W. Nance and Meg 
Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 2000 and 2001,'' it is 
because of our love, affection and respect for Admiral Bud Nance and 
Meg Donovan.
  Bud Nance was Chief of Staff of the Foreign Relations Committee until 
he passed away on May 11.
  Bud served his country his entire adult life--as an ensign aboard the 
USS North Carolina in the Pacific Theater during World War II and later 
as a test pilot and fighter pilot. Among his many honors, he earned two 
Distinguished Service Medals and capped off his distinguished 38-year 
navy career as skipper of the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal.
  Bud went on to serve as President Ronald Reagan's Deputy National 
Security Advisor. And at my request in 1991 Bud became minority staff 
director for the Foreign Relations Committee. From January 1995 until 
his passing in May, he served as Chief of Staff for the majority. Bud 
refused to take the job until I agreed that he would not take a 
paycheck. Bud said that his country had been good to him and this was 
how he could give something back to his country.
  Bud was my lifelong friend. We were born two months apart, two blocks 
apart in the little town of Monroe, North Carolina. I miss my friend; 
it was a blessing to know him.
  I am pleased that the House and the Senate agreed to recognize Bud 
and his influence on this bill, which was the last bill on which he had 
the opportunity to work. In addition, Meg Donovan has been added to the 
bill's name. I know Bud would have been honored to share this bill with 
Meg for whom he had a deep affection.
  Like Bud, Meg Donovan, who died at age 47 of cancer last October, had 
spent much of her life in government service and international affairs. 
She served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at 
the State Department at the time of her death, and before that was a 
longtime House International Relations Committee staff member.
  Meg worked closely with the Senate on the confirmation of key foreign 
affairs nominations, including those of Secretary of State Warren 
Christopher, and later, Madeleine K. Albright. In the Congress, she 
worked primarily on issues dealing with political and religious 
dissidents, minorities and other persecuted groups, including Tibetans, 
Soviet Jews and women.
  Both Bud and Meg are missed by the staffs of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee and the House International Relations Committee, 
and by me and countless others, all of whom are pleased that this 
legislation bears the names of these two fine Americans.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact. I also wish to commend my 
colleagues from New England for all of their hard work on this issue. 
Senators Jeffords, Specter, Leahy, and others all have worked 
diligently to protect the dairy farmers in our region. I thank them for 
their efforts.
  As my colleagues know, the Northeast Dairy Compact was approved by 
Congress in 1996 as a part of the Freedom to Farm bill. It was 
implemented after the Secretary of Agriculture found that there was a 
``compelling public interest'' for its creation.
  A state-generated response to the decline in the New England dairy 
industry over the last decade, the Dairy Compact has preserved local 
milk supplies for the Northeast. In 1978, there were 6,439 dairy farms 
in New England. By 1992, the number of dairy farms fell to 3,974. 
During this same time, the number of dairy farms in my home state fell 
from 93 to 41--a 60 percent decrease. As I stand here today, there are 
only 30 dairy farms remaining. 93 to 30. This certainly is an alarming 
number.
  Why is this alarming? Dairy farms are the essence of New England--
independent and hard working--the very symbol of our region. They are 
not in far away rural areas such as those in other parts of the 
country. Most are close to fast growing areas which are ripe for 
development. It would be very easy for any one of our local dairy 
farmers to sell their land to area developers and settle for an easier 
lifestyle.
  In New England, we value the contributions of our dairy farmers. As 
areas feel the pressure of population growth, and the resulting stress 
on the environment, it becomes more and more important to support dairy 
farming and the benefits we all reap from their existence. We do not 
want to see them disappear. To have them extinguished from the New 
England countryside would be the equivalent of the Liberty Bell leaving 
Pennsylvania, the Statue of Liberty leaving New York, and Mount 
Rushmore being torn down for townhomes in South Dakota.
  The Northeast Dairy Compact works. It is only fitting that we are 
here today to extend its existence. To do otherwise would jeopardize 
the progress that has been made to preserve our lands and the farming 
economy in New England.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'd like to commend the efforts of those of 
my colleagues who joined in the effort to make an important change to 
the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999. As initially 
drafted, the conference report on H.R. 1554 caused many of us great 
concern because it included two provisions which could have 
discriminated against Internet and broadband service providers by 
expressly and permanently excluding any ``online digital communication 
service'' from retransmitting a television signal or other audiovisual 
work pursuant to a compulsory or statutory license. Like many of my 
colleagues, I was deeply concerned that in the race to adjourn, 
Congress would neglect to fix these potentially damaging provisions.
  Under the agreement which has been reached on this bill, these 
provisions have been deleted. This was the right thing to do: these two 
provisions had been added to the conference report late in the process, 
after agreement had been reached on the fundamental parameters of the 
bill, and without any public debate. Now that the provisions have been 
removed, the committees of jurisdiction will have an opportunity to 
consider the proper application of the compulsory and statutory 
licensing

[[Page S15013]]

provisions of the Copyright Act to Internet and broadband service 
providers.
  Given the enormous importance of the Internet for enhancing consumer 
access to programming, it is essential that Congress give full 
attention to this issue early next year. I look forward to working with 
my colleagues to ensure that we take steps to further enhance the range 
of choices consumers have in the marketplace.
  I also wanted to take a moment to commend Senator Baucus and others 
for their efforts in securing an agreement to address the problems that 
small-market and rural areas now face in obtaining satellite broadcasts 
of their local television stations. By my estimates, the only market in 
Virginia that will get local-into-local service with the current bill 
is the metropolitan D.C. area, leaving over 94% of satellite households 
in my state without this crucial service. All Virginians, however, and, 
indeed, all Americans, deserve quality local satellite service, and I 
intend to make this issue a top priority when Congress returns next 
year.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Senate passed the Intellectual 
Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999. This bill makes 
many needed and timely reforms to the Satellite Home Viewer Act which 
originally passed almost 12 years ago. I have said for many months I 
believed this was a measure that Congress should enact before 
adjourning this year, and am pleased that we have been able to move 
forward on this important piece of legislation.
  For a number of years, great strides have been made by providers of 
direct broadcast satellite to compete for customers with cable, the 
traditional provider of multichannel video services. Congress 
recognized this marketplace development and the necessity to update the 
rules of the road to advance such competition.
  Satellite television providers have a unique product to offer, and 
more and more consumers are opting for television via satellite, 
including my own son Chet. During a visit in his home, I learned 
firsthand just what this debate is all about. So I disagree with those 
who say this is just a broadcaster bill or this is just a satellite 
bill. Clearly, both sides had to compromise, and the end result is one 
that is fair to the various industry segments.
  As always, when dealing with such contentious issues in the 
legislative process as were confronted in this measure, the competing 
interests of several parties had to be balanced. A number of 
compromises were reached, and the bill considered by the full Senate 
today will be good for consumers and good for competition.
  This bill allows, for the first time ever, satellite providers to 
offer local signals in local markets. Consumers value their local 
signals. They want to see their local news, their local weather, their 
local sports. Promoting localism was a goal of the conferees, while at 
the same time giving the satellite industry the tools it needed to grow 
its business. This provision will go a long way toward freeing 
satellite providers to compete head-on with cable for customers who 
want their local signals, or to provide service in many areas where 
cable is not even an available option.
  This measure will not only boost competition in the multichannel 
video marketplace, but will also ensure that consumers are not stranded 
in a catch-22, without service. I know many of my colleagues, myself 
included, heard from literally hundreds of thousands of constituents 
across the country. Constituents who had, in good faith, subscribed to 
satellite television. Constituents who were about to lose, or had 
already lost, their distant network programming channels, through no 
fault of their own. S. 1948 includes a reasonable, balanced approach to 
restore eligibility for many of these subscribers, while preventing 
further pending shut-offs.
  Other consumer friendly provisions were adopted. An improved model to 
more accurately predict eligibility to receive distant network signals 
from a satellite provider. Increased certainty in the waiver process 
when dealing with their local broadcasters.
  I feel very strongly that consumers should not be put in a bind again 
by being sold a service, only to have it taken away.
  The revised rules of the road will help level the playing field for 
the direct broadcast satellite industry as well. Copyright rates are 
slashed. Existing satellite copyright compulsory licenses are extended 
for 5 years. A 90-day waiting period to begin serving current cable 
customers who want to switch to satellite is eliminated. And the FCC 
will be required to review the distant signal eligibility standard and 
recommend improvements to Congress. The compromise also allows for a 
phase-in period for obtaining permission to bring local signals into 
markets, so that consumers and local stations benefit from local-into-
local as soon as possible.
  Mr. President, the offering of local-into-local is an expensive 
undertaking. Many of my colleagues in Congress, particularly those who 
represent rural states, recognize that economics will drive local-into-
local into larger, urban markets first. They wonder whether rural and 
small markets will receive this service.
  While debating the merits of the overall bill, this legitimate 
concern was raised. A concern that I share as well. I want my 
constituents to be able to choose a satellite provider for television 
without having to sacrifice watching their local broadcast stations. 
The largest designated market area in my home state of Mississippi is 
Jackson, which ranks number 89 out of more than 200 designated market 
areas. Satellite providers have clearly indicated they are likely to 
offer this new service in the top 60 to 70 markets. This translates 
into a lack of comparable choices for my constituents, and for millions 
of other Americans across the country. So this is an important issue 
that deserves the attention of Congress.
  From the beginning, Senator Burns has been the champion of the idea 
of a loan guarantee program to foster the development of systems to 
deliver local-into-local in rural and small market areas. Although a 
number of Senators have stood up to talk about how important this 
program is for their respective states, it has been Senator Burns who 
has stood firm and fought for this program.
  It is Senator Burns who is responsible for establishing the process 
for the full Senate to consider the loan guarantee proposal early next 
year.
  I also want to thank Senator Gramm, the distinguished Chairman of the 
Senate's Banking Committee, for his cooperation in moving this 
legislation forward.
  Based on my conversations with him and other Members, I was pleased 
that a unanimous consent agreement was reached. This agreement requires 
that a loan guarantee bill be reported to the Senate by March 30, 2000. 
It is my intention to get this provision enacted into law soon 
thereafter.
  Mr. President, I want to be clear. This unanimous consent agreement 
does not delay the implementation of the loan guarantee program. In 
fact, Senator Burns' proposal, if passed today, would still be subject 
to Fiscal Year 2001 appropriations anyway. So the earliest this program 
could take effect under any scenario is in Fiscal Year 2001. The agreed 
upon schedule for consideration of the loan guarantee authorization is 
consistent with the appropriations timetable.
  So, I believe the right incentives are in place to timely act on this 
matter when the Senate reconvenes next year. And I hope we can all work 
together, from both sides of the aisle. Without this kind of incentive, 
millions of Americans could be left behind.
  Mr. President, the participation of Members was integral in bringing 
this bill to fruition. I want to commend Senator Hatch, Chairman of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, for his leadership and determination to 
complete the Senate and House negotiations on this legislation. He 
worked diligently for weeks, dealing with major competing interests to 
achieve a balanced policy. Senator Hatch, Senator McCain, Chairman of 
the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Congressman 
Bliley, Chairman of the House Commerce Committee, and Congressman Hyde, 
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, along with all of the other 
Members of the conference, contributed greatly to the process, and I am 
grateful to them for their service.
  This bill would not have been completed without the dedicated efforts

[[Page S15014]]

and countless long hours of negotiation among staff. Their hard work is 
very much appreciated, and I want to take a moment to recognize who 
they are: Monica Azare, Ed Barron, Pete Belvin, Renee Bennett, Shawn 
Bentley, Benjamin Cline, Tony Coe, Manus Cooney, Colin Crowell, Troy 
Dow, Jon Dudas, Julian Epstein, Paula Ford, Doug Farry, Bob Foster, 
Mitch Glazier, Jim Hippe, Tim Kurth, Jon Leibowitz, Peter Levitas, Andy 
Levin, Justin Lilley, Garry Malphrus, Maureen McLaughlin, Mark Monson, 
Ann Morton, Al Mottur, Mitch Rose, Jim Sartucci, Jonathan Schwantes, 
and Alison Vinson.
  Mr. President, this bill is an improvement over the current state of 
play in today's multichannel video marketplace. It is not perfect, but 
it is a positive step forward in advancing competition among industries 
and choice for consumers.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like briefly to address Section 
2002 of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act 
of 1999, which is an amendment to the Omnibus package, to clarify its 
meaning with my colleague who drafted the provision.
  There are a number of United States companies that have applied to 
the FCC for licenses to operate non-geostationary satellite systems in 
the so-called ``Ku-band.'' These firms are spending substantial amounts 
of private capital to develop satellite systems that will provide a 
host of telecommunications services to benefit the public. The 
satellite systems that have applied for licenses in the Ku-band are 
designed to operate globally on a primary basis, and already are 
treated as primary users of the Ku-band in the International Table of 
Frequency Allocations.
  Mr. President, I bring this up because section 2002(a) directs the 
FCC to consider issuing licenses, possibly in the same bands, for new 
terrestrial communications services that provide local television to 
rural areas. Section 2002(b)(2) provides that the FCC must ensure that 
any new licensees for local television in rural areas do not cause 
harmful interference to primary users of the spectrum, presumably the 
Ku-band spectrum.
  I want to clarify that Section 2002(b)(2) requires the FCC to prevent 
harmful interference not only with those who have been designated as 
primary users on the date of enactment of this Act, but also with 
prospective primary users of the Ku-band. If the FCC were to 
misinterpret this section, that is, if the FCC prevented only harmful 
interference with those who are primary users on the date of enactment, 
the public could be denied the substantial benefits of emerging 
satellite technologies.
  Mr. McCAIN. I agree with my colleague that the authors of this bill 
did not mean to interfere with the expert technical and regulatory 
judgment of the FCC with respect to licensing applicants in the Ku-
band. The term ``primary user'' in Section 2002 is intended to include 
primary users, regardless of whether these users are primary on the 
date of enactment or are later designated as primary. The provision in 
no way seeks to grant preferential regulatory treatment to terrestrial 
license applicants over satellite system applicants. While there 
appears to be an error in the report accompanying this legislation, 
which incorrectly states that the statute says that ``existing'' 
primary users must be protected, clearly the statute does not contain 
this qualifier, and it is our intent that the FCC protect primary 
users, whether designated now, or later.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, on November 9, 1999, the House of 
Representatives overwhelmingly passed (411-8) the conference report on 
H.R. 1554, the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform 
Act of 1999. Arriving at a conference report compromise was a long 
process. For months, conferees have been negotiating over these 
provisions. The bill the Committee produced was a good bill, and that 
is underscored by the overwhelming, bipartisan support the final 
version received.
  However, the Senate will not act on this bill propr to adjourning for 
the year. Instead, Congress will recess without passing the complete 
Conference Committee version of H.R. 1554. In an attempt to achieve 
some of the gains from this bill, a modified version of the Satellite 
Home Viewers Act will be attached to the final omnibus appropriations 
bill and passed by Congress. However, it will be absent one important 
provision that would help ensure that rural citizens are not overlooked 
as they often are in other sectors.
  The two major direct broadcast satellite (DBS) companies have stated 
to Congress that they will only serve the most popular markets with 
local broadcast channels once the statutory restriction prohibiting 
this action is removed. An incentive needs to be there for businesses 
to develop this same service for households in second tier markets and 
rural areas as well. The conference report to H.R. 1554 would have 
provided $1.25 billion in loan guarantees for satellite companies that 
seek to serve these often overlooked markets. It was an idea I strongly 
supported because it would have encouraged development of this service 
in second tier and rural markets in Georgia and elsewhere in the 
country.
  Instead, a single Senator demanded the removal of this provision 
because of procedural issues and because, at the end of a legislative 
session it generally takes unanimous consent to expedite consideration 
of each measure, the bill presented to the Senate as part of the final 
appropriations bill reflects an acquiescence to this demand. To respond 
to those of us who supported the loan guarantee, the Chairman of the 
Banking Committee has promised to take up this provision and pass 
appropriate legislation by April 1, 2000. In the meantime, millions of 
satellite viewers who live in middle and rural America will not have 
the opportunity to view their local channels nor will they have the 
solace in knowing such service will be coming soon. This is very 
disappointing, and it is my sincere hope that the promise to act 
swiftly on the loan guarantees will be kept in an environment where 
promises and compacts are too often ignored.
  As a member of the Commerce Committee, I have been closely following 
this bill throughout the entire process. At the heart of this debate is 
viewers' access to local broadcast television. I say to my colleagues 
that rural Americans deserve the same access to their local broadcast 
stations that urban and suburban DBS customers will soon enjoy. I will 
work next year to ensure that this loan guarantee program is acted upon 
swiftly.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this conference report represents a 
first step in promoting satellite as a competitor to cable. The 
conference was presented with two bills which approached a number of 
the major issues in very different ways. In order to reach an 
agreement, compromises were made. As a result, I believe consumers are 
better off with the passage of this bill, and satellite companies are 
now in a better position to compete with cable companies.
  A number of provisions in particular will improve and expand 
satellite service to consumers. This conference report establishes a 
framework for satellite companies to deliver local network signals into 
local markets. This allows satellite consumers to receive their local 
network stations by satellite. The satellite companies have indicated 
that it is crucial that they are able to deliver local broadcast 
signals to satellite consumers if they are to compete with cable. I 
hope going forward, satellite companies embrace this provision and 
provide local signals to as many markets as possible, including those 
in rural areas.
  In addition to these provisions, the conference report directs the 
FCC to establish a waiver process to allow satellite consumers who 
cannot receive their broadcast signals over an outdoor antenna, to 
obtain a waiver and be allowed to get distant network signals. This 
provision establishes a uniform waiver process and ensures that a 
consumer's request for a waiver will be addressed within 30 days. The 
conference report also requires the FCC to improve the accuracy of the 
methodology used to predict which consumers cannot receive their 
broadcast signals over the air, and therefore, can obtain distant 
network signals by satellite. Language also has been placed in the bill 
to improve the negotiating position of the satellite companies in their 
negotiations with broadcasters to obtain programming. Hopefully, this 
provision

[[Page S15015]]

will help satellite providers to obtain programming from broadcasters 
on fair and reasonable terms, and ultimately, provide consumers with 
service at a competitive price.
  As noted previously, compromises were made. As the bill advanced 
through committee, I opposed the grandfathering of satellite customers 
who had been illegally provided distant network signals. At that time, 
I stated that illegal activities should not be rewarded. Satellite 
companies should not benefit from a grandfather of illegally provided 
distant broadcast signals to consumers. Nonetheless, the conference 
decided to allow satellite consumers who can receive their local 
network signals of Grade B intensity over an antenna, to continue to 
receive distant network signals by satellite. It also allowed satellite 
consumers who receive distant broadcast signals through big (C-band) 
dishes to continue receiving such service regardless of whether their 
distant broadcast signals have been cut-off or have been scheduled to 
be cut-off. In this bill, we have taken a number of steps to provide a 
better framework for the provision of satellite service. Therefore, I 
hope satellite companies will comply with the law going forward.
  I expect the passage of this conference report will result in the 
delivery of better satellite service to consumers, and ensure that 
satellite companies can provide consumers with a competitively priced 
option to cable service.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, the so-called 
``patent reform'' act was placed in the Satellite Home Viewer Act in 
the waning hours of the conference. Even though this bill did not clear 
the Senate floor in regular order and never had a vote on the floor of 
the Senate and was highly controversial for three years the proponents 
had to resort to these tactics to secure passage. The Satellite Act was 
very important and many Americans were relying on its passage so it 
provided the leverage. This is an unfortunate development in this 
legislative battle. Over the strenuous objections of several members, 
the bill stayed in the conference report. The inventors never even got 
a debate on the floor of the Senate. I think the entrepreneurs of 
America deserve far better than this sort of treatment.
  Special recognition should be given to the staff of the Alliance for 
American Innovation for their hard work on behalf of American 
Inventors, particularly Steven Shore and Beverly Selby. Also, 
Congresswoman Helen Bentley labored tirelessly on behalf of America's 
inventors, they deserve a great deal of recognition for their fight. As 
does Jim Morrison of the National Association of the Self Employed. 
They won many victories in this battle and the proponents had to resort 
to these sorts of tactics to defeat them. It is unfortunate how this 
bill was handled, the American inventors deserved a debate and a vote--
for all that they do for America, they deserve better. We are going to 
be watching carefully the impact of this bill on innovation in America.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, for the past several months I have served 
as a member of the House-Senate conference on H.R. 1554, the Satellite 
Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, which has been reported as a part 
of H.R. 3194, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act. The 
Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act is a complicated and technical 
bill, but at its heart lies a simple premise--to protect interests of 
consumers by allowing more choices in the market for television 
providers. The conference agreement does this by allowing satellite 
companies the same opportunity to provide local signals that cable 
providers currently enjoy--and this increased competition should lead 
to better prices and better services for consumers. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in supporting the act.
  As is to be expected in any complex piece of legislation, there were 
a number of difficult issues, and many public policy goals to be 
considered. The most important of these public policy goals is to 
protect the interests of consumers, and we needed to consider two 
factors in that regard--enhancing consumer choice in television 
service, and protecting the local television stations that so many rely 
on for their news, traffic, weather and sports. Accordingly, the 
conference agreement features a number of compromises that aim to 
protect both of these consumer interests.
  Perhaps the best example of this is the so-called ``must carry'' 
provision. This provision requires that if a multi-channel video 
provider (for example cable, or satellite) is carrying any broadcast 
signals in a given market, that provider must carry all broadcast 
signals in a given market. This requirement protects local television 
stations by assuring that their signals will be carried, whether 
consumers are purchasing satellite service or cable service. At first 
this may limit the number of markets that satellite providers can 
reach, but as technology and satellite capacity increase we are 
confident that satellite service, and the benefits of local signal 
competition, will reach more and more markets. This provision does not 
go into effect until January 1, 2002, in order to give the satellite 
companies time to further develop their technology and improve their 
product for consumers.
  In the meantime, this act offers a number of other benefits to 
consumers. It sets the copyright rate for local signals at zero, and 
cuts the copyright rate for the so-called ``distant local signals'' by 
as much as 45 percent. It provides a ``grandfather'' clause for a large 
group of consumers already receiving satellite service, who might 
otherwise be cut off by a federal court ruling. And it makes it easier 
for consumers to determine what type of satellite service they are 
eligible for, a process which in the past has been somewhat difficult.
  As many of my colleagues have noted, this act may not completely cure 
the competitive problems faced by consumers in the marketplace for 
video services. Certain provisions will require further action by the 
Federal Communications Commission and by Congress. But it is a good 
step in the right direction. I believe the Satellite Home Viewer 
Improvement Act of 1999 will increase competition in these markets, and 
it will increase consumer choice. In the short run, and in the long 
run, this act is good for competition, and good for consumers.


           COMPULSORY LICENSING AND ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to explain to my colleagues an 
important change made to the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 
1999, which was reintroduced as S. 1948 and included in the measure 
before us today. As my colleagues may know, I and other Senators had 
been very concerned that two sections of the legislation would unfairly 
have discriminated against Internet service providers. Many of my 
constituents were concerned that sections 1005(e) and 1011(c) of the 
legislation would be interpreted by the courts or the Copyright Office 
to expressly and permanently exclude any ``online digital communication 
service'' from retransmitting a transmission of a television program or 
other audiovisual work pursuant to a compulsory or statutory license 
under the Copyright Act.
  I am pleased to report that these potentially damaging provisions 
were deleted from the bill before us. As my colleagues may know, these 
provisions originally were inserted in conference, even though the 
committees of jurisdiction had never held hearings on them, had never 
received any record evidence as to their need, and had never considered 
them in open debate. The committees of jurisdiction in the House and 
the Senate will now have an opportunity to carefully consider the 
application of the Copyright Act to the Internet and broadband service 
providers.
  As someone proud to represent most of the major Internet service 
providers in the world. I have little doubt about the importance of the 
Internet and other online communications technologies for enhancing 
consumer access to information and programming. Online technology has 
transformed the way consumers receive information, including 
audiovisual works. It undoubtedly will bring other benefits, but only 
if Congress makes certain that it does not place unreasonable barriers 
in the way.
  Because rapid technological changes are having an ever more 
significant impact on our economy, it is essential that the Congress 
give full attention to this issue early next year.

[[Page S15016]]

            the intellectual property and communications act

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased that Sec. 2002 of S. 1948 
directs the Federal Communications Commission to expedite its review of 
license applications to deliver local television signals into all local 
markets. it's my understanding that the FCC has had applications 
pending before it since January, which, if approved, would clear the 
way for nationwide deployment of an innovative digital terrestrial 
wireless system for multi-channel video programming. This new 
technology will benefit all Americans by providing robust competition 
to incumbent cable systems in Massachusetts and across the entire 
nation. Equally important, it will provide rural Americans with the 
same access to local signals as their urban and suburban counterparts. 
Under Sec. 2002(b)(2), the FCC shall ensure that licensees will not 
cause harmful interference to existing primary users of the spectrum. 
Moreover, the FCC, consistent with its mission to manage the spectrum 
in the public interest, will address, any coordination related to new 
users of a particular band.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the American 
Inventors Protection Act of 1999, which is incorporated into the 
Satellite Home Viewers Act Conference Committee Report. I am a Member 
of that Conference Committee. Ultimately, the Satellite Home Viewers 
Act Conference Committee Report will be included in this year's omnibus 
appropriations bill, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 
2000.
  With regard to the American Inventors Protection Act, I am 
particularly pleased with the Act's inclusion of the first inventor or 
``prior user'' defense, created by Subtitle C. Unfortunately, the fact 
that this Act is being considered by the Senate in the closing days of 
the legislative session has limited the Judiciary Committee's ability 
to include a complete legislative history on the Act. As a Member of 
the Judiciary Committee, my intent is that this statement supplement 
the Senate's legislative history with regard to Subtitle C of the 
American Inventors Protection Act.
  The prior user defense to patent infringement is of great importance 
to the financial services industry. For years, the financial services 
industry developed ``back office'' methods and processes that are 
fundamental to the delivery of many financial services. The House 
Judiciary Committee Report refers to the breadth of the types of 
methods and processes used by the financial services industry: ``These 
financial services may embody methods or processes incorporated into 
any number of systems including, but not limited to, trading, 
investment and liquidity management, securities custody and reporting, 
balance reporting, funds transfer, ACH, ATM processing, on-line 
banking, check processing and compliance and risk management. In each 
of these systems, multiple processing and method steps are acting upon 
a customer's data without its knowledge.'' Minor changes in the bill 
since it was reported by the House Judiciary Committee do not affect 
the scope of methods to be considered under this Title.
  Virtually no one in the industry believed that these methods or 
processes were patentable. Instead, the only legal protections believed 
to be available were those granted under trade secret laws. Last year, 
in State Street Bank & Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, 
Inc., the financial services industry was dealt a blow when the Court 
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that business methods can be 
patented. Early this year, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in that 
case, making it official. After State Street, methods and processes 
that were developed by the financial services industry years ago are 
subject to patent. Some of these methods and processes are transparent 
to the end user of the services and can be ``reverse engineered'' and 
then easily copied. A later user of the method can now patent a method 
or process that another inventor had developed and put into use first. 
The actual inventor would then be prohibited from using his own 
invention, or be required to pay royalties to the subsequent inventor.
  This situation is clearly unfair. Fortunately, Subtitle C of the 
American Inventors Protection Act partially corrects the unfortunate 
consequences of the State Street decision by adding a new section to 
the patent code establishing the ``prior user'' defense. Specifically, 
this provides a defense to a claim of patent infringement where a 
person has commercially used or made serious preparations to 
commercially use a process that later becomes the subject matter of a 
patent issued to another. Under this subtitle, an ``internal commercial 
use or arm's length commercial transfer of a useful end result'' 
includes a method or process, the subject matter of which may be 
directed to an information or data processing system providing a 
financial service, whether in the form of physical products, or in the 
form of services, or in the form of some useful results.

  The term ``method'' should be interpreted broadly so that it includes 
any ``method of doing or conducting business,'' including a process. 
The method that is the subject matter of the defense may be an internal 
method of doing business, a method used in the course of doing or 
conducting business, or a method for conducting business in the public 
marketplace. It can be a method used in the design, formulation, 
preparation, application, testing, or manufacture of a product or 
service. A method is any systematic way of accomplishing a particular 
business goal. The defense should be applicable against patent 
infringement claims regarding methods, and to claims involving machines 
or articles of manufacture used to practice such methods (if such 
apparatus claims are included in the asserted patent). In the context 
of the financial services industry, methods would include financial 
instruments (e.g., stocks, bonds, mutual funds), financial products 
(e.g., futures, derivatives, asset-backed securities), financial 
transactions, the ordering of financial information, any system or 
process that transmits or transforms information with respect to 
eventual investments or financial transactions, and any method or 
process listed as examples by the House Judiciary Committee in its 
report.
  Of course, the defense is not a general license; it extends only to 
the specific subject matter claimed in the patent. A person asserting 
the defense under this new section has the burden of establishing it by 
clear and convincing evidence. As used in this title ``person'' 
includes each parent, subsidiary, affiliate, division, or other entity 
related to the holder of the defense when they are accused of 
infringement of the relevant patent. If the defense is asserted by a 
person who is ultimately found to infringe a patent, and subsequently 
fails to demonstrate a reasonable basis for asserting the defense, then 
the court must award attorneys fees under section 285 of Title 35.
  The first inventors defense is not available if a person has 
abandoned commercial use of the subject matter. In the context of this 
Act, abandonment means cessation of use with no intent to resume. In 
the financial services industry, certain activities are naturally 
periodic or cyclical. Intervals of non-use because of factors such as 
seasonal needs, or reasonable intervals between contracts, should not 
be considered abandonment.
  Mr. President, subtitle C strikes a balance between the rights of the 
later inventor who obtains patent protection to enjoy his exclusive 
rights in the claimed subject matter, and the inherent fairness to the 
earlier user to continue to use its methods and processes to conduct 
and, even expand, its business. Thus, by creating a personal, prior 
user defense, subtitle C would give the patent owner its statutory 
patent rights enforceable against all except the earlier inventor and 
commercial user of common subject matter.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Satellite Home 
Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 which is now included as part of this 
year's Omnibus Appropriations Bill. Simply put, these changes in the 
law are long overdue.
  It should come as no surprise that the final version of this 
legislation is the product of compromise. Certainly, no one received 
everything they wanted. However, at the end of the day, everyone can 
walk away and say they got something. That holds true for broadcasters, 
satellite companies and, most importantly and to the greatest degree, 
consumers.

[[Page S15017]]

  The single most important thing that this bill will do is ``level the 
playing field'' so that satellite companies can better compete with 
cable. It does so by changing the anomaly in the law that prohibits 
satellite companies from broadcasting local signals to local people, 
lowering the royalty rates paid by satellite companies and, among other 
things, removing the unconscionable 90 day waiting period that a 
consumer must endure before switching from cable to satellite service. 
We also grant a six month ``grace period'' for ``local-into-local'' 
retransmission consent agreements. I am not so sure that this is quite 
the ``Holy Grail'' for consumers that some believe it is; however, I 
doubt the sky is going to fall down for the networks either.
  To ensure that all local stations are carried and to keep the playing 
field as level as possible, this legislation imposes full ``must 
carry'' obligations by 2002 upon satellite providers, just as current 
law does on cable. That is, if a satellite company carries one local 
station in a market, then it must carry all the local stations. Now, 
reasonable people can disagree about ``must carry''--the Supreme Court 
upheld its constitutionality by a slim 5-4 vote--but it is only fair to 
apply it evenly to both cable and satellite companies.
  This Conference Report also lays to rest many of the thorny disputes 
that have served only to hurt consumers. Both the Senate and the House 
have agreed to ``grandfather'' those consumers in the Grade B service 
area who currently receive ``distant network'' signals. To be sure, 
some satellite companies have been bad actors in this debate and so 
have some subscribers. Nonetheless, short of deposing each and every 
consumer, it's best to put these problems behind us and start off on a 
clean slate. We expect that going forward the letter of the law will be 
adhered to and respected--heavy penalties await those who would do 
otherwise, and rightfully so.
  The matter of ``if and when'' a consumer should receive a waiver from 
a local broadcaster currently resembles a Sherlock Holmes mystery. So 
we order the FCC to draft ``consumer-friendly'' regulations to govern 
the waiver process. Our bill tells local broadcasters that if they fail 
to act on waiver requests within 30 days, the request will be 
``deemed'' approved. We trust the FCC will improve and simplify this 
process even further.
  Just as importantly, we ask the FCC to take a hard look at whether 
the Grade B standard is sufficient to determine what a good picture is 
in today's world. The truth is that if there's a fairer standard out 
there, then we should apply it. Rest assured, the Congress will get the 
last bite at the apple by requiring the FCC to report back to Congress 
with its findings, rather than allowing the Commission to ``self-
execute'' its new study.
  Let me make one final point regarding one of the most difficult 
matters in Conference: retransmission consent. The original House 
language was predicated on the belief that there exists unequal 
bargaining positions between the broadcasters and the satellite 
companies. Our Senate bill took precisely the opposite approach. But 
our law comes out somewhere in the middle: it will prohibit exclusive 
deals, ensure that parties negotiate in ``good faith'' when making 
these agreements, and put some teeth into ``good faith'' by adding the 
``competitive marketplace considerations'' language.
  That said, there may be some disagreement as to what exactly this new 
provision means. At the very least, ``competitive marketplace 
considerations'' may simply be interpreted as the normal, everyday 
jostling that takes place in the business world. At the very most, a 
``competitive marketplace'' would tolerate differences based upon 
legitimate cost justifications, but not anti-competitive practices such 
as illegal tying and bundling. The answer probably lies somewhere 
between these two interpretations and we trust the sometimes confused 
FCC, as we often do, to properly divine the real intent of a somewhat 
confused Congress.
  Again, this isn't a perfect bill. Far from it. But we can't let the 
perfect be the enemy of the good. This measure will allow satellite 
companies to compete more aggressively with cable; it will provide more 
choice for consumers; with luck, it may even discipline rising cable 
rates. So I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, fair, and 
comprehensive legislation that was the product of a great deal of hard 
work and negotiation. We owe consumers no less than that.
  Mr. President, one final note: I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record the names of the Conference Committee staff to 
show my appreciation for their hard work. They are to be commended for 
putting in the long hours it took to get this bill done.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

     Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 Conference Staff

       Shawn Bentley, Senate Judiciary Committee--Senator Hatch
       Troy Dow, Senate Judiciary Committee--Senator Hatch
       Pete Belvin, Senate Commerce Committee--Senator McCain
       Mitch Rose, Senator Stevens
       Paula Ford, Senate Commerce Committee--Senator Hollings
       Al Mottur, Senate Commerce Committee--Senator Hollings
       Maureen McLaughlin, Senate Commerce Committee--Senator 
     McCain
       Peter Levitas, Senate Judiciary Committee--Senator DeWine
       Ed Barron, Senate Judiciary Committee--Senator Leahy
       Jon Leibowitz, Senate Judiciary Committee--Senator Kohl
       Jonathan Schwantes, Senate Judiciary Committee--Senator 
     Kohl
       Jim Hippe, Senator Thurmond
       Jim Sartucci, Senator Lott
       Renee Bennett, Senator Lott
       Justin Lilley, House Commerce Committee--Representative 
     Bliley
       Ed Hearst, House Commerce Committee--Representative Bliley
       Linda Bloss-Baum, House Commerce Committee--Representative 
     Bliley
       Mitch Glazier, House Judiciary Committee--Representative 
     Hyde
       Vince Garlock, House Judiciary Committee--Representative 
     Coble
       Monica Azare, House Commerce Committee--Representative 
     Tauzin
       Bob Foster, House Commerce Committee--Representative Oxley
       Andy Levin, House Commerce Committee--Representative 
     Dingell
       Colin Crowell, House Commerce Committee--Representative 
     Markey
       Ann Morton, House Commerce Committee--Representative 
     Boucher
       Ben Cline, House Judiciary Committee--Representative 
     Goodlatte
       Garg Sampak, House Judiciary Committee--Representative 
     Conyers
       Bari Schwartz, House Judiciary Committee--Representative 
     Berman
       Tim Kurth, Office of the Speaker
       Doug Farry, Office of the Majority Leader
       Tony Coe, Senate Legislative Counsel
       Steven Cope, House Legislative Counsel
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Appropriations conference report before 
us contains most of the text of the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 
1554, a reform of the Satellite Home Viewers Act. In addition to 
Satellite Home Viewers Improvement Act, this legislation contains two 
other major intellectual property bills, a major reform of the patent 
system and a bill to protect against the growing problem of 
``cybersquatting,'' whereby the valuable names of businesses and 
individuals are registered by others in bad faith to either trade on 
those names or damage their value. These three pieces of legislation 
are major reforms that help American consumers and American businesses. 
I will briefly discuss these reforms in turn.
  As the Chairman of the Conference Committee and sponsor of the 
original Senate copyright legislation underlying the Satellite Home 
Viewer Improvements Act, I am delighted that the conferees have been 
able to put together a comprehensive package of consumer-friendly 
reforms for satellite viewers. The bill reflects an enormous effort on 
the part of members and their staffs on both sides of Congress from 
both parties, and represents a major advance in copyright and 
communications law.
  The world of video communication has changed enormously since 
television began some 70 years ago in the small home workshop of 
inventor and Utah native Philo T. Farnsworth, who, together with his 
wife and colleagues, viewed the first television transmission: a single 
black line that rotated from vertical to horizontal. At the risk of 
offending those who may disagree, I think TV programming has greatly 
improved since the Farnsworths' rotating black line. Since that day in 
the Farnsworths' workshop, television viewers have benefitted from 
steady advances in technology that have brought increased access to an 
ever more diversified range

[[Page S15018]]

of programming choices. The television industry has progressed from one 
or two over-the-air broadcast stations, to a full range of broadcast 
networks delivering local and syndicated national programming, to cable 
television delivering both broadcast and made-for-cable programming. 
And in the past decade, satellite carriers, delivering to customers 
with both large and, increasingly, small dishes are emerging as new and 
potent competitors in the television delivery business.
  The legislation before us today will--for the first time --allow 
satellite carriers to provide local subscribers with their local 
television signals. This means every television viewer in Utah can have 
access to Utah news, weather, sports, and other locally-relevant 
programming, as well as national network programming. Emerging 
technology now makes this possible, and our bill will make it legal. 
The bill also reduces the copyright fees that are passed along to 
subscribers. As a result, eligible viewers in parts of Utah unserved by 
over-the-air television will enjoy access to network stations at lower 
prices.
  Let me illustrate some of the benefits of this legislation for Utah 
and for Utahns. Similar benefits can accrue across the country if this 
legislation is fully utilized. Many areas of Utah are unserved by over-
the-air television or even by cable systems. Satellite service has been 
the only television option for many Utahns. Up until the passage of 
this conference report, these Utahns were able to get network stations, 
but usually from cities outside of Utah, such as New York or Los 
Angeles. And, those Utahns who had satellite dishes but lived in areas 
which did receive local television over-the-air could not legally get 
any network television programming using their satellite dishes, but 
had to get them with an off-air antenna or by cable. Under the 
provisions of this conference report, every Utahn will be able to get 
local network programming, which includes both national network shows 
like ``ER'' and ``The X-Files'' and local news, weather, sports, and 
public affairs programming. And those people who live in the so-called 
``white areas'' that are unserved by local television can get local 
programming from Salt Lake City, as well as keep their distant signals 
if they wish to. Making Utah information and entertainment available to 
all Utahns is a great benefit to us as a state, and helps bind us 
together as a community. And in 2002, the satellite carriers will be 
required to carry all the local television stations, just like cable. 
This means that viewers will have the same range of local programming 
as they have come to expect from cable, and that the viewers, rather 
than satellite carriers, will be able to choose which local stations to 
watch.
  Making local television signals available to all Utahns, and citizens 
of similar communities across the country, is the most important reason 
for this legislation. But there are many other benefits to consumers: 
copyright rates for satellite signals are cut almost in half, and the 
local signals are free. The Federal Communications Commission will work 
to ensure that eligibility decisions for distant network signals are 
clearer and prompter. Some satellite subscribers have expressed 
frustration that they do not get prompt responses from local television 
stations to distant signal eligibility waiver requests, although the 
situation is better in Utah than in some other places. To remedy the 
problem, we included a provision that says if a subscriber asks a local 
station for a waiver to allow them to get distant network signals, this 
conference report requires a response in 30 days or the waiver is 
deemed approved. There was a provision in the previous law that 
required cable subscribers to wait 90 days after unhooking their cable 
before they could get satellite service. We removed that waiting period 
so that Utahns who want to switch from cable can do so immediately.
  We heard from the owners of recreational vehicles that they wanted to 
be able to put satellite dishes on their RV's when they go camping or 
traveling. In this bill, we allow RV owners who comply with certain 
documentation requirements to get satellite service. So Utahns do not 
need to leave their satellite service behind when they travel. The same 
rules would apply to long-haul truckers.
  Recent lawsuits enforcing the distant signal eligibility rules under 
the copyright act have put many satellite subscribers in danger of 
losing their distant network signal service. Let me be clear that I do 
not condone or support what appears to have been law-breaking by the 
satellite carriers. But I am concerned about subscribers being caught 
in the middle, especially those who are not clearly served by over-the-
air television from their local broadcasters. So, in this legislation, 
we protect the eligibility for satellite service received by current 
subscribers have who do not get a city-grade or Grade A signal. In this 
way, we can protect those subscribers who may have been misled about 
their eligibility and who may be in an area that is not clearly served, 
so that they will not be out their investment. With regard to the 
signal intensity rules that make up the eligibility standard for 
distant signals, we have asked the FCC to give us their best judgment 
about how we should reform the law, so that we can have their best 
input before we consider any further major reforms on this issue.

  I have talked about the benefits that will accrue to satellite 
subscribers if the satellite carriers take full advantage of these 
copyright license reforms. But the benefits are not just limited to 
satellite subscribers. There will be benefits to cable subscribers, 
too, that will come from a satellite industry equipped to compete with 
cable head on in the market. Satellite service consistently ranks high 
on consumer surveys for service satisfaction. It has a vast array of 
channels for viewers to choose from. As I mentioned earlier, the growth 
of the satellite television business has been phenomenal, even without 
the ability to deliver local television stations. Recent consumer 
surveys indicate that 85 percent of respondents said that the lack of 
local signals is the reason why consumers who considered buying 
satellite service decided not to. Imagine the growth in this industry 
now that they will be able to compete with cable with the offering of 
local programming. What does this all mean for cable subscribers? One 
of the reasons why many believe cable is rated low on customer 
satisfaction is that it usually does not have a real competitor. Many 
local cable systems know its customers have nowhere else to go, so they 
do not exert themselves as much to please the customer as they might 
with a competitor. Armed with local signals, as well as the rest of the 
benefits satellite offers, there should be a new spark of competition 
in those areas where local satellite service is available. That will 
lead to lower prices, increased choices, and happy customers for both 
satellite and cable, and all television viewers.
  Today we are also considering a patent reform package which contains 
the most significant reforms to our nation's patent code in half a 
century. This bill, which Senator Leahy and I introduced as the 
``American Inventors Protection Act,'' is one of the most important 
high-tech reform measures to come before this body. It is widely 
supported by an overwhelming majority of members on both sides of the 
aisle, by the Administration, and by a broad coalition of industry, 
small businesses, and American inventors. Its consideration here today 
is imminently appropriate on the eve of a new millennium in which 
America's ability to compete and the strength of our economy will 
depend on the strength of the patent system and the protections it 
affords.
  Intellectual property, and patents in particular, are among our 
nation's greatest assets. From semiconductor chip technology, to 
computer software, to biotechnology, to Internet and telecommunications 
technology, the United States remains the undisputed world-leader in 
technological innovation. In fact, according to Newsweek Magazine, the 
United States is home to seven of the world's top ten technology 
centers, which includes my own state of Utah. Moreover, American 
creative industries now surpass all other export sectors in foreign 
sales and exports. As the Internet, electronic commerce, and new 
innovative technologies increasingly drive the growth of our economy, 
the strength of our patent system and its ability to respond to the 
challenges of new technology and global competition will be more 
important than ever. This bill will enable our patent system to meet 
these challenges and to protect American inventors and American 
competitiveness into the next century.

[[Page S15019]]

  As many of my colleagues know, this bill is a compromise bill that 
reflects years of discussion and extensive efforts to reach agreement 
on all sides. Since first introducing this bill as an omnibus measure 
in the 104th Congress, we have literally engaged in countless hours of 
discussions and adopted over 100 amendments to this bill in order to 
forge a consensus on a package of responsible patent reforms. The 
Senate made significant progress toward consensus in the last Congress 
when the Judiciary Committee reached several key compromises to 
strengthen the bill's protections for small businesses and independent 
inventors. I was pleased to see those efforts continued in the House 
this year, where the supporters and former opponents of the bill agreed 
to sit down and work through their differences in an effort to produce 
a constructive patent reform bill. As a result of these cooperative 
efforts in the House and Senate, the bill before us now enjoys 
overwhelming bipartisan, bicameral support, and it is now endorsed by 
the most vocal opponents of earlier reform measures.
  This broad support is reflected in the several votes that have 
already occurred on this measure this year. The House has passed this 
bill three times this year, including by a 376-43 vote on the bill as 
stand alone measure in August and by a 411-8 vote on the bill as part 
of the conference report on the ``Intellectual Property and 
Communications Omnibus Reform Act.'' The Senate Judiciary Committee 
also passed the bill by an 18-0 roll call vote earlier this month.
  Having touched upon some of the compromises that have brought people 
together on this bill, let me take just a minute to highlight what this 
bill will do for American inventors.
  1. The bill protects against fraudulent invention promoters which 
prey upon novice inventors.
  2. It reduces patent fees for only the second time in history, saving 
American inventors an estimated $30 million each year. The bill will 
also ensure that patent fees are not used to subsidize trademark 
operations and will require the PTO to study alternative fee structures 
to encourage maximum participation by small inventors.
  3. It protects American companies and their workers from patent 
infringement suits as a result of recent policy changes that have 
allowed patents to begin to issue on internal business methods that 
were previously thought to be unpatentable and which have been used 
under trade secret protection.
  4. It guarantees that every diligent inventor with a patentable 
invention will receive at least 17 years of patent protection (which is 
what they would have received pre-GATT); most will receive a great deal 
more.
  5. It allows American inventors and innovators to see foreign 
technology at least 12 months earlier than today, while allowing 
American inventors to maintain protections of existing law that allow 
them to keep their inventions secret during patent pendency. It also 
gives American inventors new protections by given them provisional 
rights during the pendency of internationally published applications.

  6. It creates a new optional administrative procedure in the Patent 
and Trademark Office to reduce litigation costs for patent owners and 
to allow members of the public to participate in testing the validity 
of patents, all while fully protecting patent holders against 
repetitive challenges.
  7. It restructures the Patent and Trademark Office to eliminate red 
tape and provide greater oversight by the American inventing community, 
especially by small businesses and independent inventors.
  8. It protects our national security by requiring the PTO to maintain 
a program with the Office of Personnel Management to identify national 
security positions at the PTO and by protecting strategic information 
from disclosure.
  9. Finally, it restricts the ability of the PTO Commissioner to 
exchange U.S. patent data with certain foreign nations.
  In short, this is one of the most important technology-related bills 
to come before Congress in recent memory. It has been years in the 
making and reflects the input of many, many people from all sides. The 
time to act on this package of reforms has clearly come, and I am 
pleased that the Senate is finally taking this measure up.
  I am also pleased that the Senate will complete action on the 
``Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act'' and send that 
legislation to the President. In short, this is another key high-tech 
bill that will curb the harmful practice of ``cybersquatting''--a term 
used to refer to the deliberate and bad-faith registration of Internet 
domain names in violation of the rights of trademark owners. 
Cybersquatting is a very serious threat to consumers and the future 
growth of electronic commerce. For example, we heard testimony in the 
Judiciary Committee of consumer fraud being perpetrated by the 
registrant of the ``attphonecard.com'' and ``attcallingcard.com'' 
domain names, who set up Internet sites purporting to sell calling 
cards and soliciting personally identifying information, including 
credit card numbers. Sammy Sosa had his name cybersquatted and used for 
a website that implied his endorsement of the products being sold. 
There are countless other similar examples of so-called ``dot-con'' 
artists who prey on consumer confusion and trade on the goodwill of 
others.
  The fact is that if consumers cannot rely on brand-names online as 
they do in the world of bricks and mortar store-fronts, few will be 
willing to engage in e-commerce. Those who do will bear substantial 
risks of being confused or even deceived. Few Internet users would buy 
a car, fill a prescription, or even shop for books online if you they 
cannot be sure who they are dealing with.
  This legislation will go a long way to ensure this sort of online 
brand-name protection for consumers. At the same time, the bill 
carefully balances these interests of consumers and trademark owners 
with the interests of Internet users and others who would make fair or 
otherwise lawful uses of trademarked names in cyberspace.
  As with trademark cybersquatting, cybersquatting of personal names 
poses similar threats to consumers and e-commerce in that it causes 
confusion as to the source or sponsorship of goods or services, 
including confusion as to the sponsorship or affiliation of websites 
bearing individuals' names. In addition, more and more people are being 
harmed by people who register other peoples names and hold them out for 
sale for huge sums or money or use them for various nefarious purposes. 
I am particularly troubled at the prospect of what someone might do 
with websites bearing the name of such people as Mother Teresa, which I 
understand are currently being offered for $7 million by a 
cybersquatter.
  For this reason, I was pleased that the House amendments to the 
Senate bill clarified that famous names that enjoy service mark status, 
such as celebrity actors and very likely Mother Teresa, are included. 
As I have said, however, this bill should not be just about protecting 
celebrities. I am thus pleased that the legislation in this conference 
report goes further to protect those whose names don't meet the 
relatively high threshold of a famous mark, but who are nonetheless 
targeted by cybersquatters. For example, ESPN has reported that a 
number of cybersquatters have targeted the names of high-school 
athletes in anticipation that they may some day become famous. Earlier 
versions of the House and Senate bills would not have protected these 
individuals, but this legislation will. Furthermore, this bill directs 
the Commerce Department to report to Congress on ways to better protect 
personal names against cybersquatting and to work in conjunction with 
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to 
include personal name disputes in the ICANN dispute resolution policy.
  This a key measure to promote electronic commerce and to protect 
consumers and individuals online. While I recognize the global nature 
of the cybersquatting problem, I believe this legislation is an 
important start to a worldwide solution--as evidenced by the fact that 
the latest ICANN dispute resolution policy reflects a number of the 
policies embodied in the Senate bill. I appreciate Senator Abraham's 
effort to move this bill through Congress, and I am pleased we will 
pass it today.
  These are important intellectual property reforms that are helpful to 
American consumers and American

[[Page S15020]]

businesses. They are the product of the hard work of many people. Mr. 
President, I would like to thank many people who have worked hard to 
get this conference report agreed to and passed. First, let me thank 
and personally congratulate each of my colleagues on the Conference 
Committee for their diligent work in achieving this goal, especially my 
distinguished Ranking Member and original co-sponsor Senator Leahy, as 
well as Chairman McCain, and Senators Thurmond, Stevens, DeWine, 
Hollings, and Kohl, all of whom made important contributions. On the 
House side, I extend my gratitude and congratulations to Chairman 
Hyde and Chairman Bliley and to Representatives Coble, Tauzin, 
Goodlatte, Oxley, Dingell, Conyers, Markey, Berman, and Boucher. Of 
course, this successful result is also the product of tireless efforts 
by our capable staffs, who have worked through many late nights and 
weekends, to make this successful resolution possible. Among the many 
Senate staff members who have made critical contributions are Manus 
Cooney, Shawn Bentley, and Troy Dow of my staff; Bruce Cohen, Ed 
Barron, Beryl Howell of Senator Leahy's staff; and from the other 
Senate conferees, Mitch Rose, Pete Belvin, Maureen McLaughlin, Paula 
Ford, Al Mottur, Gary Malphrus, Jim Hippe, Pete Levitas, Jon Leibowitz, 
John Schwantes, and many others on the Senate side. Let me congratulate 
each of them on their work. Tony Coe of Senate Legislative Counsel and 
Bill Roberts of the Copyright Office both put in many long hours to 
provide technical assistance. I know I speak for all of the Senate 
conferees in expressing my gratitude to all these first-rate staff 
members, as well as to the fine staff on the House side. The leadership 
staff from both houses, particularly Jim Sartucci and Renee Bennett 
from Senator Lott's staff and Doug Farry from Representative Armey's 
office were key liaisons in this process.

  On patent reform, let me note my very sincere appreciation to the 
Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, with whom I 
have worked for the better part of three Congresses to bring about 
these important reforms. His leadership on the Democratic side has been 
a key part to getting this bill done. I want to also recognize the 
extraordinary efforts of our House colleagues on this bill. Chairman 
Coble, who is the bill's primary sponsor in the House, along with the 
Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, 
Congressman Berman, as well as Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member 
Conyers, have all dedicated tremendous time and effort over the last 
four years to moving this legislation forward. Their able leadership is 
reflected in the support this bill received in the House. But I want to 
mention in particular Congressman Rohrabacher and Congressman Campbell 
who in years past had led the opposition in the House to this bill. It 
is because of their efforts to work cooperatively with the proponents 
of this legislation in the House to craft a package of truly 
responsible reforms on behalf of American inventors that we have a bill 
before us today. I want to recognize them for their leadership, and for 
their good faith both in the House and in the Senate this year.
  Finally, with respect to cybersquatting legislation, I want to again 
commend the Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham, for his sponsorship 
of this legislation, as well as the Ranking Member, Senator Leahy, with 
whom I have again worked hand in hand to bring this bill to final 
passage.
  All of these people and others were instrumental in the success of 
this legislation, but let me express an especially warm thanks to 
Senator Leahy, with whom I have worked closely on these and so many 
other intellectual property matters, and to the Chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens. We worked particularly 
closely in the satellite reform conference, and he played a unique and 
crucial role in the ultimate passage of this package of important 
intellectual property legislation. I thank him for his leadership and 
his steadfast support. And let me single out the efforts of Mitch Rose 
of Senator Stevens' staff who worked along with my staff and Steve 
Cortese of Senator Stevens' Appropriations Committee staff, under 
Senator Stevens' leadership, to ensure that these important 
intellectual property matters were ultimately enacted into law despite 
the difficulties encountered in the process. They are superb public 
servants and they work for one of the finest members of this August 
body with whom I have had the pleasure of working. Finally, let me 
mention Bruce Cohen, Ed Barron, and Beryl Howell of Senator Leahy's 
staff, who, along with Senator Leahy, work with me and my staff with 
exceptional cooperation on intellectual property matters. We have had a 
particularly productive relationship on these important matters, and I 
look forward to continuing that relationship. On my own staff, I 
express my appreciation for the work of Shawn Bentley and Troy Dow, who 
have labored long and hard to successfully enact this legislation, and 
I thank their families for their support of their efforts on behalf of 
American innovators, creators, and consumers. Finally, let me thank my 
Chief Counsel, Manus Cooney, for overseeing all of this fine work, and 
putting in countless hours of strenuous effort to ensure its 
completion. He is a consummate leader, and I thank him for his stellar 
service.
  I ask unanimous consent that the statements of Senators Leahy, 
DeWine, and Kohl, followed by a number of colloquies between myself and 
a number of different senators on diverse matters included in the 
satellite conference report, be included in the Record at this point as 
though read, together with supporting documents, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee is about to achieve 
an end-of-the-session high technology sweep that comes on the heels of 
landmark Internet and intellectual property reforms that our committee 
achieved in the 105th Congress.
  Others are observing that this is the most productive and forward-
looking two years of achievement in updating intellectual property laws 
of this or any previous era. I believe they are right.
  We may never have another such set of opportunities where we are able 
to provide so many benefits to consumers, innovators and to the high 
technology innovators in the business community in such a short span of 
time.
  In one fell swoop we are providing consumers with local-into-local 
television, protecting patent terms, spurring innovation and enhancing 
electronic commerce and protecting trademarks.
  One of the challenges we face at this early stage of the Information 
Age is to bring the order of intellectual property law to the Wild West 
of the Internet and to other burgeoning information technologies. That 
challenge is at the heart of these three bills.
  I want to make just a couple points about each of them. The patent 
bill is long overdue. It will put American innovations on a more equal 
footing with European and Japanese inventors. It also helps protect 
inventors against invention promotion scams and against needless PTO 
delay in approving patents.
  The anti-cybersquatting bill protects merchants who want to be able 
to control where their names and brands are being displayed and protect 
them from abuse. More than 200 years ago Ben Franklin said that a 
person's honor and good name is like fine china--easily broken but 
impossible to mend. This is still the case today and the bill protects 
the rights of trademark holders against malicious abuse. It arms on-
line merchants and consumers with new tools to derail these 
``squatters'' who try to create bad waves for honest cybersurfers.
  And then there is the satellite bill, which is a charter for a new 
era of television service competition that will benefit consumers in 
several tangible ways. It sets the stage for the first real head-to-
head competition between cable and satellite TV that will be a brand 
new experience for hundreds of communities.
  It will contribute a new unifying influence and greater sense of 
community in states like Vermont, where citizens in most of the state 
for the first time will have access to all Vermont stations. It will 
avert further waves of programming cutoffs to satellite TV customers, 
including what would have been the largest cutoff of all, in December.
  The satellite bill will, over time, mean that some families will be 
able to

[[Page S15021]]

get local network television for the first time ever. I believe that 
making local television signals available throughout much of a state 
will be a unifying force and enhance public participation in state and 
community issues. It will remove the artificial isolation caused by 
mountain ridges or distance from broadcast towers. It will also prevent 
these infuriating and seemingly mindless cutoffs and promote direct 
head-to-head competition with cable.

  We have had some major bumps in the road in getting here with these 
three bills.
  I want to mention the rural satellite TV provisions. I know that we 
had preliminary discussions about this six months ago and that 
Department of Agriculture attorneys and program experts met with our 
staffs to go over the details months ago.
  I proposed that USDA handle this loan guarantee program because they 
have 50 years of experience with financing rural telephone and rural 
electric cooperatives. Vast areas of this nation were able to get 
electric and telephone service solely because of these programs.
  It is hard to believe in this day and age, but thousands of Americans 
still remember when these USDA loan programs gave them electricity for 
the first time.
  I am disappointed that the final bill does not include this provision 
that we worked on--but I am pleased that the Senate leaders have worked 
out an arrangement with us so that this matter will be resolved early 
next year.
  Without this loan guarantee program I am convinced that rural areas--
75 percent of the U.S. landmass--might not receive local-into-local 
satellite TV until 10 or 20 years after urban areas do.
  Another major hurdle concerned a request by AOL and YAHOO for changes 
to the bill. This concerned whether or not they should receive a 
compulsory license to show regular TV programming over the Internet. 
Chairman Hatch and I resolved this by agreeing to have hearings on this 
important matter of convergence of technology and the protection of 
copyrighted material--converging TV, data, telephone, messages and 
other transmissions through broadband technologies while protecting 
ownership rights to copyrighted material.
  A third bump in the road was over the GAO study Senator Hatch and I 
proposed of current practices regarding the patent protection for 
business methods resulting from the State Street case. In the end, we 
took out that language but agreed that we would ask the GAO to look 
into this for us. This issue will test the limits of what is proper 
subject matter to be patented and what is not. I can easily see Senator 
Hatch and I having more than one hearing on this issue.
  So here we are in the death throes of this session of Congress. It is 
satisfying to know that some of the farthest-reaching achievements of 
this session are the products of the work of the Judiciary Committee, 
and of my partnership with Chairman Hatch.
  I am delighted that as Conferees on the satellite bill that we have 
been able to put this complex and important legislation, which 
originated with the Hatch-Leahy Satellite Home Viewers Improvements Act 
in the Senate, into final form.
  We worked closely with a number of Senators and members of the other 
body on this important legislation. Any time that you work with four 
Committees in a Conference there are a lot of members and staff who do 
very creative and important work late into the night, night after night 
after night.
  I want to single out just a few staff even though I know I am leaving 
out many who deserve equal praise. Shawn Bentley with Chairman Hatch 
displayed enormous poise and breath of knowledge regarding satellite TV 
issues. He balanced, as did his Chairman, a variety of complex issues 
very carefully and very well.
  Troy Dow similarly was extremely helpful regarding patent and 
cybersquatting issues and deserves a great deal of credit.
  I want to also thank Ed Barron of my staff regarding the satellite TV 
and patent bills and Beryl Howell on cybersquatting. They both worked 
very diligently on these and other issues and did a great job.
  Subcommittee Chairman DeWine and ranking Member Kohl were also 
Conferees, along with Senator Thurmond, and played a major role 
regarding satellite TV issues.
  This bill will provide viewers with more choices and will greatly 
increase competition in the delivery of television programming, while 
ensuring minimal interference with the free market copyright system 
that serves our country so well.
  For years I have raised concerns about the lack of competition with 
cable TV and escalating cable rates. This bill will allow satellite TV 
providers to compete directly with cable in offering local stations and 
will give consumers a wider range of choice. It also protects local TV 
affiliates while postponing certain cutoffs of satellite TV service.
  Most promisingly, the bill will permit local TV signals, as opposed 
to distant out-of-state network signals, to be offered to viewers via 
satellite. Vermont is a state in which satellite dishes play a very 
important role, and I know that Vermont viewers eagerly await the day 
when their local stations will be available by satellite.
  It is absurd for home dish owners--whether they live in Vermont, 
Utah, or California--to have to watch network stations imported from 
distant states instead of local stations. They should have a choice. I 
expect the satellite industry to do everything in its power to extend 
local-to-local coverage beyond the biggest cities and into important 
smaller markets such as those in Vermont, and the satellite industry 
should not expect further Congressional largesse if it fails to do so.
  One satellite company called Capitol Broadcasting has already 
committed to serve Vermont once its spot beam technology satellites 
have been launched and other technological requirements have been put 
in place. I am counting on that happening over the next two or three 
years.
  I was very pleased to have met with the moving force behind Capitol 
Broadcasting--Jim Goodmon. This company was formed by his grandfather, 
A. J. Fletcher, in 1937. Under Jim Goodmon's management, Capitol 
Broadcasting has expanded into satellite communications, the Internet 
and high definition television. In April, Jim received the Digital 
Television Pioneer Award from Broadcasting and Cable magazine. One of 
their stations, CBC, was the first broadcaster to transmit a high 
definition television digital signal. I look forward to helping 
inaugurate their local-into-local service into Vermont.
  I expect that others will compete in Vermont. I understand the 
EchoStar, under its CEO, Charlie Ergen, and DirecTV, are also looking 
at providing service to Vermont.

  Providing local TV stations to Vermont dish owners will lead to head-
to-head competition between cable and satellite TV providers which 
should lead to more services for Vermonters at lower prices. Also, the 
bill will allow households who want to subscribe to this new satellite 
TV service to receive all local Vermont TV stations over the satellite.
  The goal is to offer Vermonters with more choices, more TV 
selections, but at lower rates. In areas of the country were there is 
this full competition with cable providers, rates to customers are 
considerably lower.
  Over time this initiative will permit satellite TV providers to offer 
a full selection of all local TV channels to viewers throughout most of 
Vermont, as well as the typical complement of superstations, weather 
and sports channels, PBS, movies and a variety of other channels.
  This means that local Vermont TV stations will be available over 
satellite to many areas of Vermont currently unserved by satellite or 
by cable.
  I have gotten lots of letters from Vermonters who complained about 
the current situation where local TV stations challenged their right to 
receive that signal.
  Under current law, it is illegal for satellite TV providers to offer 
local TV channels over a satellite dish when you live in an area where 
you are likely to get a clear TV signal with a regular rooftop antenna 
at least half of the time.
  This means that thousands of Vermonters living in or near Burlington 
cannot receive local signals over their satellite dishes.

[[Page S15022]]

  Under current law, those families must get their local TV signals 
over an antenna which often does not provide a clear picture. This bill 
will remove that legal limitation and allow satellite carriers to offer 
local TV signals to viewers no matter where they live in Vermont.
  Presently, Vermonters receive satellite signals with programming from 
stations in other states--in other words they would get a CBS station 
from another state but not WCAX, the Burlington CBS affiliate.
  By allowing satellite providers to offer a larger variety of 
programming, including local stations, the satellite industry would be 
able to compete with cable, and the cable industry will be competing 
with satellite carriers. Cable will continue to be a very effective 
competitor with its ability to offer extremely high-speed Internet 
connections to homes and businesses.
  As mentioned earlier, the second major improvement in this initiative 
is that satellite carriers that offer local Vermont channels in their 
mix of programming will be able to reach Vermonters throughout Vermont. 
The system will be based on regions called Designated Market Areas, or 
DMAs. Vermont has one large DMA covering most of the state and part of 
the Adirondacks in New York--the Burlington-Plattsburg DMA--and parts 
of two smaller ones in Bennington County (the Albany-Schenectady-Troy 
DMA) and in Windham county (the Boston DMA).
  This new satellite system is not available yet, and may not be 
available in Vermont until two to three years from now. Companies such 
as Capitol Broadcasting are preparing to launch spot-beam satellites to 
take advantage of this bill. Using current technology, signals would be 
provided by spot-beam satellites using regional uplink sites throughout 
the nation to beam local signals up to one or two satellites. Those 
satellites could use 60 spot beams to send those local signals, 
received from the regional uplinks, back to satellite dish owners. High 
definition TV would be offered under this system at a later date.
  Under this bill, Vermonters will have more choices. I want to point 
out that those who want to keep their current satellite service can do 
just that.
  In addition, we have protected the C-Band dish owners who have 
invested a lot of money in this now out-dated, but still used, 
technology. I did not think it was fair to pull the plug on them.
  Those who want to stick with cable, or with regular broadcast TV, are 
welcome to continue to participate that way.
  Since technology advances so quickly, other systems could be 
developed before this bill is fully implemented that would provide 
similar service but using a different technology.
  The bill will also extend the distant signal compulsory license in 
Section 119. In almost all respects, the distant signal license will 
apply in the same way in the future as it applies today. The most 
important exception is that the bill will allow continued delivery of 
distant network stations to thousands of Vermonters and residents of 
other states who would otherwise have distant network satellite service 
terminated at the end of the year (or who have had such service 
terminated by court order since July 1998).
  The purpose of this temporary ``grandfathering'' is not to reward 
satellite carriers that have broken the law. Rather, the purpose of the 
grandfathering is to assist certain subscribers in Vermont and 
elsewhere who might have been misled by satellite companies into 
believing that they were eligible to receive distant network 
programming by satellite. The purpose is also to aid in achieving a 
smooth transition to local-into-local programming which avoids many of 
these issues.
  The subscribers who will be grandfathered are those who are not 
predicted to receive a signal of Grade A intensity from any station 
affiliated with the relevant network, along with certain additional C-
band subscribers.
  I want to make clear that I do not condone lawbreaking by satellite 
companies or anyone else, and nothing that Congress is doing today 
should be read in that light. Satellite companies remain liable for 
every other remedy provided by the Copyright Act or other law for any 
infringements they have committed. Satellite carriers should not be 
heard to argue for any grandfathering beyond what Congress has 
expressly approved, or to contend that they should be relieved of any 
other available remedy because of Congress' actions.
  The second change to Section 119 is that there will no longer be a 
90-day waiting period for cable subscribers that is currently part of 
the definition of ``unserved household.'' This change will help to make 
the satellite industry more competitive with cable, an objective I know 
every member of this body shares. Third, the bill will limit to two the 
number of distant signals that a satellite carrier may deliver to 
unserved households.

  Except with respect to these specific changes in Section 119, nothing 
in the law we are passing today will take away any of the rights and 
remedies available to the parties to copyright infringement litigation 
against satellite carriers. Nor does anything in this bill suggest any 
criticism of the courts for enforcing the Copyright Act. It is their 
job to apply the law to the facts.
  It is crucial to our system that all players in the marketplace, 
including satellite carriers, be required to obey the law and held 
accountable in the courts for the consequences of their own 
lawbreaking. Indeed, if a particular satellite carrier has engaged in a 
willful or repeated pattern or practice of infringements, it should be 
held to the statutory consequences of that misconduct.
  The addition of the word ``stationary'' to the phrase ``conventional 
outdoor rooftop receiving antenna'' in Section 119(d)(10) of the 
Copyright Act merits a word of discussion. As the Ranking Member of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over copyright 
matters, and one of the original sponsors of this legislation, I want 
to emphasize that use of this word should not be misunderstood.
  The new language says only that the antenna is to be ``stationary''; 
it does not say that the antenna is to be improperly oriented, that is 
pointed in way that does not obtain the strongest signal. The word 
``stationary'' means, for example, that testing should be done using a 
stationary antenna, as the FCC has directed.
  Satellite companies must not be encouraged to urge consumers to point 
antennas in the wrong direction to qualify for different treatment.
  As to antenna orientation, the relevant guidance is provided in 
Section 119(a)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the bill, which specifies that the 
FCC's procedures (requiring correct orientation) be followed. Since 
satellite dishes must be properly oriented to receive a picture at all, 
it would make no sense to specify misorientation of over-the-air 
antennas.
  Permitting misorientation would also be inconsistent with the entire 
structure of the definition of ``unserved household,'' which looks to 
whether a household is capable of receiving a signal of Grade B 
intensity from a particular type of affiliate, that is an ABC station 
or a Fox station, not whether it is capable of receiving all of the 
stations in the market.
  As I mentioned before, the Copyright Act amendments direct courts to 
continue to use the accurate, consumer-friendly prediction and 
measurement tools developed by the FCC for determining whether 
particular households are served or unserved. If the Commission is able 
to refine its so-called ``ILLR'' predictive model to make it even more 
accurate--as I hope it will--the courts should apply those further 
refinements as well.
  In fact, the Copyright Act amendments in the bill specifically 
address the possibility that the FCC may be able to modify its ILLR 
model to make it even more accurate. Specifically, the Act provides in 
new Section 119(a)(2)(B)(ii)(I) of the Copyright Act that if the FCC 
should later modify the ILLR model to make it still more accurate, 
courts should, under Section 119(a)(2)(B)(ii)(I), use the even more 
accurate version in the future for predictive purposes.
  Whether a proposed modification to the ILLR model makes it more 
accurate is an empirical question that the Commission should address by 
comparing the predictions made by any proposed model against actual 
measurements of signal intensity. The Commission's analysis should 
reflect our

[[Page S15023]]

policy objective: to determine whether a household is--or is not--
capable of receiving a signal of Grade B intensity from at least one 
station affiliated with the relevant network.
  The FCC has properly recognized that reducing one type of errors, 
underprediction, while increasing another type of errors, 
overprediction, does not increase accuracy, but simply puts a thumb on 
the scale in favor of one side or the other. The issue under Section 
119(a)(2)(B)(ii) is the overall accuracy of the model, as tested 
against available measurement data, with regard to whether a household 
is, or is not, capable of receiving a Grade B intensity signal from at 
least one affiliate of the network in question.
  The conferees and many other members of this body have worked hard to 
achieve the carefully balanced bill now before the Senate. I urge my 
colleagues to give it their full support. Most of all, I thank and 
congratulate my distinguished colleague and good friend, Chairman 
Hatch, for his outstanding work over many months on this important 
bill, which will provide lasting benefits for my constituents in 
Vermont and for citizens in every other state.

  I'm also pleased that the Conference Report directs the Federal 
Communications Commission to take expedited action on getting new 
technologies deployed that can deliver local television signals to 
viewers in smaller television markets. We've known all along, if we 
pass legislation authorizing local-into-local, the DBS carriers would 
readily deliver local channels to those subscribers who are fortunate 
enough to live in the largest markets. There are 210 local television 
Designated Market Areas in our country, and most Vermonters live in the 
91st-ranked DMA. That is why it is so important for the FCC to expedite 
review of alternative technologies, such as the digital terrestrial 
wireless system developed by Northpoint Technology, which are capable 
of delivering local signals into all markets on a must carry basis.
  I want to briefly mention the patent bill.
  This patent bill is important to America's future. I have heard from 
inventors, from businesses large and small, from hi-tech to low-tech 
firms--this bill will give American inventors and businesses an 
improved competitive edge now enjoyed by many European countries.
  We should be on a level playing field with them.
  This bill reduces patent fees for only the second time in history. 
The first time that was done was in a Hatch-Leahy bill passed by the 
Senate in the 105th Congress.
  All the concepts in this bill--such as patent term guarantees, 
domestic publication of patent applications filed abroad, first 
inventor defense--have been thoroughly examined. Indeed, they have been 
included in several bills that the Congress has carefully studied.
  I wish to point out that the Senate Judiciary Committee last year 
also developed a strong bill--S. 507--which contained many of the same 
concepts and approaches found in H.R. 1907 and S. 1798.
  American business needs this patent bill, American technology 
companies need this patent bill, American inventors and innovators need 
this patent bill.

  The Administration says that we must have the reforms in this bill. 
It will: reduce legal fees that are paid by inventors and companies; 
eliminate duplication of research efforts and accelerate research into 
new areas; increase the value of patents to inventors and companies; 
and facilitate U.S. inventors and companies' research, development, and 
commercialization of inventions.
  In Vermont, we have a number of independent inventors and small 
companies. It is, therefore, especially important to me that this bill 
be one that helps them as well as the larger companies in Vermont like 
IBM.
  Over the past several years, Congress has held eight Congressional 
hearings with over 80 witnesses testifying about the various proposals 
incorporated in the bill. Republican and Democratic Administrations 
alike, reaching back to the Johnson Administration, have supported 
these similar reforms.
  I also want to thank Secretary Daley and the Administration for their 
unflagging support of effective patent reform.
  The ``American Inventors Protection Act'' was designed to make 
targeted improvements to the patent code in order to enable the 
American patent system to meet the challenges of new technology and new 
markets as we approach the next millennium.
  The bill builds upon compromises forged in the Senate Judiciary 
Committee in the 105th Congress, as well as additional compromises in 
the House of Representatives in the 106th Congress, to achieve these 
goals while protecting and promoting the interest of American inventors 
at home and abroad.
  I also want to discuss the comments of Senators Schumer and 
Torricelli regarding the patent bill and the State Street decision. I 
look forward to working with both of those Senators on the issues they 
raise. I expect that the Committee will have hearings on this matter 
next year. Also, the Conference Report on the bill contains a detailed 
analysis of these important issues which was accepted by all Conferees.
  The FY 2000 Omnibus Appropriations bill also includes provisions that 
Senator Hatch and I and others have crafted to address cybersquatting 
on domain names. We have worked hard to craft this legislation in a 
balanced fashion to protect trademark owners and consumers doing 
business online, and Internet users who want to participate in what the 
Supreme Court has described as ``a unique and wholly new medium of 
worldwide human communication.'' Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844.
  Trademarks are important tools of commerce. The exclusive right to 
the use of a unique mark helps companies compete in the marketplace by 
distinguishing their goods and services from those of their 
competitors, and helps consumers identify the source of a product by 
linking it with a particular company. The use of trademarks by 
companies, and reliance on trademarks by consumers, will only become 
more important as the global marketplace grows larger and more 
accessible with electronic commerce. The reason is simple: when a 
trademarked name is used as a company's address in cyberspace, 
customers know where to go online to conduct business with that 
company.
  The growth of electronic commerce is having a positive effect on the 
economies of small rural states like mine. A Vermont Internet Commerce 
report I commissioned earlier this year found that Vermont gained more 
than 1,000 new jobs as a result of Internet commerce, with the 
potential that Vermont could add more than 24,000 jobs over the next 
two years. For a small state like ours, this is very good news.
  Along with the good news, this report identified a number of 
obstacles that stand in the way of Vermont reaching the full potential 
promised by Internet commerce. One obstacle is that ``merchants are 
anxious about not being able to control where their names and brands 
are being displayed.'' Another is the need to bolster consumers' 
confidence in online shopping.
  Cybersquatters hurt electronic commerce. Both merchant and consumer 
confidence in conducting business online are undermined by so-called 
``cybersquatters'' or ``cyberpirates,'' who abuse the rights of 
trademark holders by purposely and maliciously registering as a domain 
name the trademarked name of another company to divert and confuse 
customers or to deny the company the ability to establish an easy-to-
find online location. A recent report by the World Intellectual 
Property Organization (WIPO) on the Internet domain name process has 
characterized cybersquatting as ``predatory and parasitical practices 
by a minority of domain registrants acting in bad faith'' to register 
famous or well-known marks of others--which can lead to consumer 
confusion or downright fraud.

  Enforcing trademarks in cyberspace will promote global electronic 
commerce. Enforcing trademark law in cyberspace can help bring consumer 
confidence to this new frontier. That is why I have long been concerned 
with protecting registered trademarks online. Indeed, when the Congress 
passed the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, I noted that:

       Although no one else has yet considered this application, 
     it is my hope that this

[[Page S15024]]

     antidilution statute can help stem the use of deceptive 
     Internet addresses taken by those who are choosing marks that 
     are associated with the products and reputations of others.

  The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 has been used as I 
predicted to help stop misleading uses of trademarks as domain names. 
One court has described this exercise by saying that ``attempting to 
apply established trademark law in the fast-developing world of the 
Internet is somewhat like trying to board a moving bus. . .'' Bensusan 
Restaurant Corp. v. King, 126 F.3d 25. Nevertheless, the courts appear 
to be handling ``cybersquatting'' cases well. As University of Miami 
Law Professor Michael Froomkin noted in testimony submitted at the 
Judiciary Committee's hearing on this issue on July 22, 1999, ``in 
every case involving a person who registered large numbers of domains 
for resale, the cybersquatter has lost.''
  For example, courts have had little trouble dealing with a notorious 
cybersquatter, Dennis Toeppen from Illinois, who registered more than 
100 trademarks--including

``yankeestadium.com,'' ``deltaairlines.com,''

 and ``neiman-marcus.com''--as domain names for the purpose of 
eventually selling the names back to the companies owning the 
trademarks. The various courts reviewing his activities have 
unanimously determined that he violated the Federal Trademark Dilution 
Act.

  Similarly, Wayne State University Law Professor Jessica Litman noted 
in testimony submitted at the Judiciary Committee's hearing that those 
businesses that ``have registered domain names that are confusingly 
similar to trademarks or personal names in order to use them for 
pornographic web sites * * * have without exception lost suits brought 
against them.''
  Even as we consider this legislation, we must acknowledge that 
enforcing or even modifying our trademark laws will be only part of the 
solution to cybersquatting. Up to now, people have been able to 
register any number of domain names in the popular ``.com'' domain with 
no money down and no money due for 60 days. Network Solutions Inc., the 
dominant Internet registrar, recently announced that it was changing 
this policy, and requiring payment of the registration fee up front. In 
doing so, NSI admitted that it was making this change to curb 
cybersquatting.
  In addition, we need to encourage the development of alternative 
dispute resolution procedures that can provide a forum for global users 
of the Internet to resolve domain name disputes. For this reason, I 
authored an amendment that was enacted last year as part of the Next 
Generation Internet Research Act authorizing the National Research 
Council of the National Academy of Sciences to study the effects on 
trademark holders of adding new top-level domain names and requesting 
recommendations on inexpensive and expeditious procedures for resolving 
trademark disputes over the assignment of domain names. Both the 
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and WIPO are also 
making recommendations on these procedures. Adoption of a uniform 
trademark domain name dispute resolution policy should be of enormous 
benefit to American trademark owners.
  We should encourage the sensible development of case law in this 
area, the ongoing efforts within WIPO and ICANN to build a consensus 
global mechanism for resolving online trademark disputes, and the 
implementation of domain name registration practices designed to 
discourage cybersquatting. The legislation we pass today as part of the 
Omnibus Appropriations bill for the upcoming fiscal year is intended to 
build upon this progress and provide constructive guidance to trademark 
holders, domain name registrars and registries and Internet users 
registering domain names alike.

  This legislation has been significantly improved since it was first 
introduced. As originally introduced by Senator Abraham and others, S. 
1255, the ``Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act'', proposed to make it 
illegal to register or use any ``Internet domain name or identifier of 
an online location'' that could be confused with the trademark of 
another person or cause dilution of a ``famous trademark.'' Violations 
were punishable by both civil and criminal penalties.
  I voiced concerns at a hearing before the Judiciary Committee that, 
in its original form, S. 1255 would have a number of unintended 
consequences that would have hurt rather than promoted electronic 
commerce, including the following specific problems:
  The definition was overbroad. As introduced, S. 1255 covered the use 
or registration of any ``identifier,'' which could cover not just 
second level domain names, but also e-mail addresses, screen names used 
in chat rooms, and even files accessible and readable on the Internet. 
As one witness pointed out, ``the definitions will make every fan a 
criminal.'' How? A file document about Batman, for example, that uses 
the trademark ``Batman'' in its name, which also identifies its online 
location, could land the writer in court under that bill. 
Cybersquatting is not about file names.
  The original bill threatened hypertext linking. The Web operates on 
hypertext linking, to facilitate jumping from one site to another. The 
original bill could have disrupted this practice by imposing liability 
on operators of sites with links to other sites with trademark names in 
the address. One could imagine a trademark owner not wanting to be 
associated with or linked with certain sites, and threatening suit 
under this proposal unless the link were eliminated or payments were 
made for allowing the linking.

  The original bill would have criminalized dissent and protest sites. 
A number of Web sites collect complaints about trademarked products or 
services, and use the trademarked names to identify themselves. For 
example, there are protest sites named ``boycott-cbs.com'' and 
``www.PepsiBloodbath.com.'' While the speech contained on those sites 
is clearly constitutionally protected, as originally introduced, S. 
1255 would have criminalized the use of the trademarked name to reach 
the site and made them difficult to search for and find online.
  The original bill would have stifled legitimate warehousing of domain 
names. The bill, as introduced, would have changed current law and made 
liable persons who merely register domain names similar to other 
trademarked names, whether or not they actually set up a site and used 
the name. The courts have recognized that companies may have legitimate 
reasons for registering domain names without using them and have 
declined to find trademark violations for mere registration of a 
trademarked name. For example, a company planning to acquire another 
company might register a domain name containing the target company's 
name in anticipation of the deal. The original bill would have made 
that company liable for trademark infringement.
  For these and other reasons, Professor Litman concluded that, ``as 
introduced, S. 1255 would in many ways be bad for electronic commerce, 
by making it hazardous to do business on the Internet without first 
retaining trademark counsel.'' Faced with the risk of criminal 
penalties, she stated that ``many start-up businesses may choose to 
abandon their goodwill and move to another Internet location, or even 
to fold, rather than risk liability.''
  Domain name cybersquatting is a real problem. For example, 
whitehouse.com has probably gotten more traffic from people trying to 
find copies of the President's speeches than those interested in 
adult material.

  While the problem is clear, narrowly defining the solution is 
trickier. The mere presence of a trademark is not enough. Legitimate 
conflicts may arise between companies offering different services or 
products under the same trademarked name, such as Juno Lighting Inc. 
and Juno online services over the juno.com domain name, or between 
companies and individuals who register a name or nickname as a domain 
name, such as the young boy nicknamed ``Pokey'' whose domain name 
``pokey.org'' was challenged by the toy manufacturer who owns the 
rights to the Gumby and Pokey toys. A site may also use a trademarked 
name to protest a group, company or issue, such as pepsibloodbath.com, 
or even to defend one's reputation, such as www.civil-action.com, which 
belongs not to a motion picture studio, but to W.R. Grace to rebut the 
unflattering portrait of the company as a polluter

[[Page S15025]]

and child poisoner created by the movie.
  There is a world of difference between these sorts of sites and those 
which use deceptive naming practices to draw attention to their site 
for example, whitehouse.com, or those who use domain names to 
misrepresent the goods or services they offer, for instance, 
dellmemory.com, which may be confused with the Dell computer company.
  We must also recognize certain technological realities. For example, 
merely mentioning a trademark is not a problem. Posting a speech that 
mentions AOL on my web page and calling the page aol.html, confuses no 
one between my page and America Online's site. Likewise, we must 
recognize that while the Web is a key part of the Internet, it is not 
the only part. We simply do not want to pass legislation that may 
impose liability on Internet users with e-mail addresses, which may 
contain a trademarked name. Nor do we want to crack down on newsgroups 
that use trademarks descriptively, such as alt.comics.batman.
  In short, it is important that we distinguish between the legitimate 
and illegitimate use of domain names, and the cybersquatting 
legislation that we pass today does just that.

  Due to the significant flaws in S. 1255, the Senate Judiciary 
Committee reported and the Senate passed a complete substitute to that 
bill. On July 29, 1999, Senator Hatch and I, along with several other 
Senators, introduced S. 1461, the ``Domain Name Piracy Prevention Act 
of 1999.'' This bill then provided the text of the Hatch-Leahy 
substitute amendment that the Senate Judiciary Committee reported 
unanimously to S. 1255 the same day. This substitute amendment, with 
three additional refinements contained in a Hatch-Leahy clarifying 
amendment, was passed by the Senate on August 5, 1999.
  This Hatch-Leahy substitute provided a better solution than the 
original, S. 1255, in addressing the cybersquatting problem without 
jeopardizing other important online rights and interests.
  Following Senate passage of the bill, the House passed a version of 
the legislation, H.R. 3208, the ``Trademark Cyberprivacy Prevention 
Act'', which has been modified for inclusion in the FY 2000 Omnibus 
Appropriations bill.
  This legislation, now called the ``Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer 
Protection Act'', would amend section 43 of the Trademark Act by adding 
a new section to make liable for actual or statutory damages any domain 
name registrant, who with bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill 
of another's trademark, without regard to the goods or services of the 
parties, registers, traffics in or uses a domain name that is identical 
or confusingly similar to a distinctive trademark or dilutive of a 
famous trademark. The fact that the domain name registrant did not 
compete with the trademark owner would not be a bar to recovery. This 
legislation also makes clear that personal names that are protected as 
marks would also be covered by new section 1125.
  Furthermore, this legislation should not in any way frustrate the 
global efforts already underway to develop inexpensive and expeditious 
procedures for resolving domain name disputes that avoid costly 
and time-consuming litigation in the court systems either here or 
abroad. In fact, the legislation expressly provides liability 
limitations for domain name registrars, registries or other domain name 
registration authorities when they take actions pursuant to a 
reasonable policy prohibiting the registration of domain names that are 
identical or confusingly similar to another's trademark or dilutive of 
a famous trademark. The ICANN and WIPO consideration of these issues 
will inform the development by domain name registrars and registries of 
such reasonable policies.

  Uses of infringing domain names that support liability under the 
legislation are expressly limited to uses by the domain name registrant 
or the registrant's authorized licensee. This limitation makes clear 
that ``uses'' of domain names by persons other than the domain name 
registrant for purposes such as hypertext linking, directory 
publishing, or for search engines, are not covered by the prohibition.
  Other significant sections of this legislation are discussed below:
  Domain names are narrowly defined to mean alphanumeric designations 
registered with or assigned by domain name registrars or registries, or 
other domain name registration authority as part of an electronic 
address on the Internet. Since registrars only register second level 
domain names, this definition effectively excludes file names, screen 
names, and e-mail addresses and, under current registration practice, 
applies only to second level domain names.
  The terms ``domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other 
domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name'' in 
Section 3002(a) of the Act, amending 15 U.S.C. 1125(d)(2)(a), is 
intended to refer only to those entities that actually place the name 
in a registry, or that operate the registry, and would not extend to 
other entities, such as the ICANN or any of its constituent units, that 
have some oversight or contractual relationship with such registrars 
and registries. Only these entities that actually offer the challenged 
name, placed it in a registry, or operate the relevant registry are 
intended to be covered by those terms.

  Liability for registering a trademark name as a domain name requires 
``bad faith intent to profit from that mark''. The following non-
exclusive list of nine factors are enumerated for courts to consider in 
determining whether such bad faith intent to profit is proven:
  (i) the trademark or the intellectual property rights of the domain 
name registrant in the domain name;
  (ii) whether the domain name is the legal name or the nickname of the 
registrant;
  (iii) the prior use by the registrant of the domain name in 
connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
  (iv) the registrant's legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the 
mark at the site accessible under the domain name;
  (v) the registrant's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's 
online location in a manner that could harm the mark's goodwill, either 
for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the 
mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, 
sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the site;
  (vi) the registrant's offer to sell the domain name for financial 
gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name 
in the bona fide offering of goods or services or the registrant's 
prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
  (vii) the registrant's intentional provision of material, false and 
misleading contact information when applying for the registration of 
the domain name, intentions, failure to maintain accurate information, 
or prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
  (viii) the registrant's registration of multiple domain names that 
are identical or similar to or dilutive of another's trademark; and

  (ix) the extent to which the mark is or is not distinctive.
  Significantly, the legislation expressly states that bad faith shall 
not be found ``in any case in which the count determines that the 
person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the case of 
the domain name was a false use or otherwise lawful.'' In other words, 
good faith, innocent or negligent uses of a domain name that is 
identical or confusingly similar to another's mark or dilutive of a 
famous mark are not covered by the legislation's prohibition.
  In short, registering a domain name while unaware that the name is 
another's trademark would not be actionable. Nor would the use of a 
domain name that contains a trademark for purposes of protest, 
complaint, parody or commentary satisfy the requisite scienter 
requirement.
  Bad-faith intent to profit is required for a violation to occur. This 
requirement of bad-faith intent to profit is critical since, as 
Professor Litman pointed out in her testimony, our trademark laws 
permit multiple businesses to register the same trademark for different 
classes of products. Thus, she explains:

       Although courts have been quick to impose liability for bad 
     faith registration, they have been far more cautious in 
     disputes involving a domain name registrant who has a 
     legitimate claim to use a domain name and registered it in 
     good faith. In a number of cases,

[[Page S15026]]

     courts have refused to impose liability where there is no 
     significant likelihood that anyone will be misled, even if 
     there is a significant possibility of trademark dilution.

  In civil actions against cybersquatters, the plaintiff is authorized 
to recover actual damages and profits, or may elect before final 
judgment to an award of statutory damages of not less than $1,000 and 
not more than $100,000 per domain name, as the court considers just. In 
addition, the court is authorized to forfeit, cancel, or transfer the 
domain name to the plaintiff. To reduce frivolous litigation and the 
risk of reverse domain name hijacking, the court is authorized to award 
courts and attorneys' fees to the prevailing party.

  In Rem Actions. The bill would also permit an in rem civil action to 
be filed by a trademark owner in the judicial district in which the 
registrar, registry or other domain name authority that actually 
registered or assigned the domain name is located. Such an action may 
be filed only in circumstances where the domain name violates the 
owner's rights in the trademark and where the court finds that (1) the 
trademark owner was not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over 
the domain name registrant; or (2) the owner through due diligence was 
not able to find the domain name holder to bring an in personam civil 
action by sending notice to the registrant at the postal and email 
address provided to the registrar and publishing notice as the court 
may direct promptly after filing the action.
  The remedies of an in rem action are limited to a court order for 
forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the 
domain name to the trademark owner. To protect the domain name 
registrant, the registrar or registry shall not transfer, suspend, or 
modify the domain name during the pendency of the action except as the 
court may order. By contrast to the House-passed version of this 
legislation, under the legislation passed today, a trademark holder 
would be permitted to file an in rem action only when in personam 
jurisdiction cannot be exercised.
  In Porsche Cars North American Inc. v. Porsche.com, 51 F. Supp. 2nd 
707, the court dismissed an in rem action against a domain name, even 
though Network Solutions Inc. had surrendered the underlying domain 
name registration documents to the court to give it control over the 
``res.'' The court held that in rem actions against allegedly diluting 
marks are not constitutionally permitted without regard to whether in 
personam jurisdiction may be exercised, The court explained:

       Porsche correctly observes that some of the domain names at 
     issue have registrants whose identities and addresses are 
     unknown and against whom in personam proceedings might be 
     fruitless. But most of the domain names in this case have 
     registrants whose identities and addresses are known, and 
     who rightly would object to having their interests 
     adjudicated in absentia. The Due Process Clause requires 
     at least some appreciation for the difference between 
     these two groups, and Porsche's pursuit of an in rem 
     remedy that fails to differentiate between them at all is 
     fatal to its Complaint.

  This legislation does differentiate between those two different 
categories of domain name registrants and limits in rem actions to 
those circumstances where in personam jurisdiction cannot be obtained.
  Liability Limitations. The bill would limit the liability for 
monetary damages and, in certain circumstances, for injunctive relief 
of domain name registrars, registries or other domain name registration 
authorities for any action they take to refuse to register, remove from 
registration, transfer, temporarily disable or permanently cancel a 
domain name, where the action is taken pursuant to a court order or in 
the implementation of reasonable policies prohibiting the registration 
of domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to another's 
trademark, or dilutive of a famous trademark.
  Prevention of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Reverse domain name 
hijacking is an effort by a trademark owner to take a domain name from 
a domain name registrant who registered the domain name legitimately 
and in good faith. There have been some well-publicized cases of 
trademark owners demanding the take-down of certain web sites set up by 
parents who have registered their children's names in the .org domain, 
such as two year old Veronica Sam's ``Little Veronica'' website and 12 
year old Chris ``Pokey'' Van Allen's web page.
  In order to protect the rights of domain name registrants in their 
domain names, the legislation provides that registrants may recover 
damages, including costs and attorney's fees, incurred as a result of a 
knowing and material misrepresentation by a person that a domain name 
is identical or similar to, or dilutive of, a trademark. Moreover, 
should the domain name registrant prevail in a suit for cybersquatting, 
the registrant as the prevailing party is authorized to award costs and 
attorneys' fees.

  In addition, a domain name registrant, whose domain name has been 
suspended, disabled or transferred, may sue upon notice to the mark 
owner, to establish that the registration or use of the domain name by 
the registrant is lawful. The court in such a suit is authorized to 
grant injunctive relief, including the reactivation of a domain name or 
the transfer or return of a domain name to the domain name registrant.
  Personal Names. Commercial sites are not the only ones suffering at 
the hands of domain name pirates. This issue has struck home for many 
in this body. The Congress is not immune: while cspan.org provides 
detailed coverage of the Senate and House, cspan.net is a pornographic 
site. Moreover, Senators and presidential hopefuls are finding that 
domain names like bush2000.org and hatch2000.org are being snatched up 
by cyber poachers intent on reselling these domain names for a tidy 
profit.
  This legislation addresses this problem by making liable a domain 
name registrant in a civil action for injunctive relief, including 
forfeiture, cancellation, or transfer of a domain name for registering 
the name of another living person with the specific intent to profit by 
selling the domain name for financial gain to that person or any third 
party. This provision applies only prospectively.
  In addition, the legislation directs the Commerce Department in 
consultation with PTO and the Federal Election Commission to study and 
report to Congress on procedures for resolving disputes over personal 
names registered as domain names and to collaborate with ICANN on these 
procedures.
  Cybersquatting is an important issue both for trademark holders and 
for the future of electronic commerce on the Internet. Any legislative 
solution to cybersquatting must tread carefully to ensure that 
authorized remedies do not impede or stifle the free flow of 
information on the Internet. In many ways, the United States has been 
the incubator of the World Wide Web, and the world closely watches 
whenever we venture into laws, customs or standards that affect the 
Internet. We must only do so with great care and caution. Fair use 
principles are just as critical in cyberspace as in any other 
intellectual property arena. In my view, this legislation respects 
these considerations.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today as the Senate 
finishes its consideration of the last in a package of four very 
important intellectual property related ``high-tech'' bills that Senate 
Leahy and I introduced earlier this year. Three of those bills--the 
``Trademark Amendments Act of 1999,'' the ``Patent Fee Integrity and 
Innovation Protection Act of 1999,'' and a Copyright Act technical 
corrections bill--were passed by the House and Senate and signed into 
law in August of this year. The fourth of those bills--the ``Digital 
Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act'' (S. 1257)--was 
passed by the House with an amendment and returned to the Senate. Each 
of these bills is designed to promote the continued growth of vital 
sectors of the American economy and to protect the interests and 
investment of the entrepreneurs, authors, and innovators who fuel their 
growth.
  Technology continues to be the driving force in the American economy 
today, and American technology is setting new standards for the global 
economy, from semiconductor chip technology, to computer software, 
Internet

[[Page S15027]]

and telecommunications technology, to leading pharmaceutical and 
genetic research. In my own state of Utah, these information technology 
industries contribute in excess of $7 billion each year to the State's 
economy and pay wages that average 66 percent higher than the state 
average. Their performance has placed Utah among the world's top ten 
technology centers according to Newsweek Magazine. Similar success is 
seen in areas across the country, with the U.S. being home to seven of 
the world's top ten technology centers and with American creative 
industries now surpassing all other export sectors in foreign sales and 
exports.
  Underlying all of these technologies are the intellectual property 
rights that serve to promote creativity and innovation by safeguarding 
the investment, effort, and goodwill of those who venture into these 
fast-paced and volatile fields. Strong intellectual property 
protections are particularly critical in the global high-tech 
environment where electronic piracy is so easy, so cheap, and yet so 
potentially devastating to intellectual property owners--many of which 
are small entrepreneurial enterprises. In Utah, 65 percent of these 
companies have fewer than 25 employees, and a majority have annual 
revenues of less than $1 million. Intellectual property is the 
lifeblood of these companies, and even a single instance of piracy 
could drive them out of business. What's more, without adequate 
international protection, these companies would simply be unable to 
compete in the global marketplace.
  That is why we enacted a number of measures last year to provide 
enhanced protection for intellectual property in the new global, high-
tech environment. For example, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 
(DMCA) implemented two new World Intellectual property Organization 
Treaties setting new global standards for copyright protection in the 
digital environment. We also paved the way for new growth in online 
commerce by providing a copyright framework in which the Internet and 
other new technologies can flourish.

  The ``Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement 
Act'' builds upon those protections by raising the Copyright Act's 
limit on statutory damages to make it more costly to engage in cyber-
piracy and copyright theft. Section 504(c) of the Copyright Act 
provides for the award of statutory damages at the plaintiff's election 
in order to provide greater security for owners, who often find it 
difficult to prove actual damages in infringement cases--particularly 
in the electronic environment--and to provide greater deterrence for 
would-be infringers. The current provision caps statutory damages at 
$20,000 ($100,000 in cases of willful infringement), which reflects 
figures set in statute in 1988 when the United States joined the Berne 
Convention. The combination of more than a decade of inflation and 
revolutionary changes in technology have rendered those figures largely 
inadequate to achieve their aims. The bill before us updates these 
statutory damage provisions to account for both these factors.
  Under the bill, the cap on statutory damages is increased by 50 
percent, from $20,000 to $30,000, and the minimum is similarly 
increased from $500 to $750. For cases of willful infringement, the cap 
is raised to $150,000. This will not mean that a court must impose the 
full amount of damages in any given case, or even that it will be more 
likely to do so. In most cases, courts attempt to do justice by fixing 
the statutory damages at a level that approximates actual damages and 
defendant's profits. What this bill does is give courts wider 
discretion to award damages that are commensurate with the harm caused 
and the gravity of the offense. At the same time, the bill preserves 
provisions of the current law allowing the court to reduce the award of 
statutory damages to as little as $200 in cases of innocent 
infringement and requiring the court to remit damages in certain cases 
involving nonprofit educational institutions, libraries, archives, or 
public broadcasting entities.
  The House of Representatives amend the bill to include an amendment 
to the ``No Electronic Theft (NET) Act.'' The NET Act--enacted to curb 
digital piracy by expanding criminal copyright infringement to include 
certain electronic infringements done without an intent to profit--
directed the U.S. Sentencing Commission to revise the sentencing 
guidelines for crimes against intellectual property to ensure that the 
applicable guideline range is sufficiently stringent to deter such 
crimes and to provide for consideration of the retail value and 
quantity of the infringed upon items with respect to which the crime 
against intellectual property was committed. This directive, and its 
specificity, reflected the concern on the part of Congress that the 
existing guidelines' reliance on the value of the infringing items 
(i.e., the street value of a bootlegged video) both underestimates the 
true economic harm inflicted on copyright owners and results in 
penalties that are so disproportionately low that U.S. attorneys are 
simply unwilling to prosecute such cases. Despite Congress' directive, 
the old guidelines remain in place unamended. The result is that today, 
nearly two years later, there has been only one case brought under the 
NET Act, and electronic piracy continues as a significant and growing 
concern.
  The House amendment to S. 1257 would revise the outstanding NET Act 
directive to require the Sentencing Commission to amend the sentencing 
guidelines to provide an enhancement based upon the retail price of the 
legitimate items that are infringed upon and the quantity of the 
infringing items, as well as to require the Commission to act within a 
set time. While the proposed revision is consistent with Congress' 
intent to strengthen the sentencing guidelines applicable to 
intellectual property-related crimes and to better reflect the economic 
harm in cases of electronic piracy, there was some concern that the 
amended guidelines would overstate economic harm or have other 
unintended consequences with respect to infringements not involving 
digital reproductions.
  The amendment Senator Leahy and I are offering today--which is the 
result of many hours of discussions and the subject of widespread 
agreement--will leave the existing NET Act directive unchanged, but 
will require the Commission to act on that directive within the later 
of 120 days from the bill's enactment or 120 days from the first date 
on which there are sufficient voting members of the Sentencing 
Commission to constitute a quorum. I expect that the Sentencing 
Commission will move expeditiously once its commissioners are in place 
to complete revision of the applicable sentencing guidelines as 
directed by the NET ACT, and that it will do so in a manner that is 
consistent with Congress' intent to provide improved deterrence in this 
area.
  In sum, this bill is an important high-tech measure that will spur 
creativity and enhance protection for American copyrighted works at 
home and abroad. I want to thank Senator Leahy for his assistance, 
cooperation, and leadership in this process, and I look forward to the 
Senate swiftly passing this bill with the Hatch-Leahy Amendment.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, For years the American people have become 
increasingly cynical about our federal government and apathetic about 
political participation. There are many reasons for this unfortunate 
state of affairs. This year's budget exemplifies several.
  One reason is our inability to do what every family and business must 
do, balance our budget. After years of large, chronic deficits, last 
year we finally, if barely, balanced the federal budget. If great care 
is not taken, the budget will not be balanced for long.
  Another reason is Washington's unwillingness to be honest with the 
American people. This budget is only the latest example. Proponents 
claim it is balanced. It is not. They say it does not raid social 
security, but it does. It purports to meet certain ``emergencies'', 
when no reasonable person could possibly consider them such. It's time 
we ended this ``business as usual'' in Washington and began to regain 
the trust of the American people.
  I oppose this bill because it spends too much and uses gimmicks that 
will make future budgets even more difficult. It ignores the greatest 
financial challenge facing our nation, entitlement reform, and makes 
matters even worse by taking money from the Social Security Trust Fund 
to pay for spending today. It foreshadows a return of

[[Page S15028]]

chronic deficits. If we must resort to such foolishness when times are 
good, what will happen when times are tough? It makes the prospect of 
meaningful tax cuts much more remote because it spends the surplus and 
then some.
  There are circumstances that could justify my support for this budget 
and some of the items that I object to. But none exist now. If 
meaningful entitlement reform had been included. If the economy were 
weak and the gimmicks were only temporary expedients, not the permanent 
fixtures they promise to be. If we had a few more years, not just one, 
of balanced budgets under our belt. There are several good things in 
this budget, things I strongly support: funding for 100,000 additional 
teachers in our classrooms, putting 50,000 additional police officers 
on our streets, relief for hospitals and other providers from excessive 
Medicare cuts, enhanced Land and Water Conservation funds, expanded 
biomedical research through NIH, expanded Head Start and increased 
After School Care.
  All of these have merit. All should be done. But we must have the 
honesty and integrity to pay for them, or the restraint to wait until 
we can, and not just perpetuate the cynicism created by annual budget 
charades.
  I look forward to voting for a future budget. One that preserves and 
strengthens the foundation of financial security so important to our 
nation's well-being. Even more, I look forward to that day when this 
Congress enjoys the respect and admiration of our fellow citizens. This 
budget will not hasten that day.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today is a historic day in the United 
States Senate. With the inclusion of the Superfund Recycling Equity Act 
in the 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, we have righted a wrong to the 
recycling industry of this Nation. We have removed the Superfund bias 
against recycled materials and set this country back on a path to 
promoting reuse of all recyclable materials. The Superfund Recycling 
Equity Act of 1999 will finally place traditional recyclable materials 
which are used as feedstocks in the manufacturing process on an equal 
footing with their virgin, or primary feedstock, counterparts. 
Traditional recyclables are made from paper, glass, plastic, metals, 
batteries, textiles, and rubber.
  Mr. President, we have been working to right this wrong for over six 
years. During the 103d Congress, I first introduced a bill to relieve 
legitimate recyclers of scrap metal from unintended Superfund 
liability. The bill was developed in conjunction with the recycling 
industry, the environmental community, and the Administration. We 
worked closely together and consistently agreed that liability relief 
for recyclers is necessary and right. The language in this bill is the 
culmination of a process that we have been working on since 1993.
  As I'm sure you can see, Mr. President, the push to relieve these 
legitimate recyclers of this unintended liability has received broad, 
bipartisan support. This bill has received 67 co-sponsors in the Senate 
this year and thanks to the strong leadership of Senators Lott, 
Daschle, Chafee, and Warner, we have successfully brought this 
important piece of legislation to the floor.
  Mr. President, as the sponsoring member of this legislation when I 
was a member of the House of Representatives, I would like to make a 
couple of important points. First, this Superfund Recycling Equity Act 
is both retroactive and prospective. Slightly different standards must 
be met for recyclers to be relieved of Superfund liability for 
recycling transactions that occurred prior to the date of enactment 
than for those that occur after the date of enactment. But in either 
scenario, legitimate recyclers of paper, glass, plastic, metals, 
textiles, and rubber will no longer be treated as if they were 
``arranging for the disposal'' of materials containing hazardous 
substances each time they sell their materials as manufacturing 
feedstocks. Rather, they will be treated as if they were selling a 
product, which is the same standard to which suppliers of virgin 
materials are held. Virgin materials are in direct competition with 
recyclables and this legislation will help to increase recycling in our 
nation.
  Recognizing that this issue has been the focus of much litigation, 
the Congress intended that the recycling situation be clarified through 
the Superfund Recycling Equity Act. That is why we have written this 
legislation in such a fashion that virtually all lawsuits that deal 
with recycling transactions of paper, glass, plastic, metals, textiles, 
and rubber are extinguished by this legislation. Only those lawsuits 
brought prior to enactment of this legislation directly by the United 
States government against a person will remain viable. All other 
lawsuits brought by private parties, or against third party defendants 
in lawsuits originally brought by the U.S. Government will no longer 
proceed under this legislation. This will resolve the inequities 
suffered by recyclers in a quick, fair, and equitable manner.
  It should also be reiterated that this bill addresses the product of 
recyclers, that is the recyclables they sell which are utilized to make 
new products. This does not affect liability for contamination that is 
created at a facility owned or operated by a recycler. Neither does it 
affect liability related to any process wastes sent by a recycler for 
treatment or disposal. In order to assure that only bonafide recycling 
facilities benefit from this bill, a number of tests have been 
established within the bill by which liability relief will be denied to 
sham recyclers.
  With the passage of this important legislation, we have taken a bold 
step in the right direction for America. We have taken a step to 
promote legitimate recycling and to put recycled materials on an equal 
footing with new materials.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as original co-sponsors of the Safe Senior 
Assurance Study Act of 1999 (S. 818), Senator Reid and I wish to 
express, for the record, our gratification for the language contained 
in the conference report on H.R. 3194 concerning physician supervision 
of anesthesia services under Medicare's Conditions of Participation.
  We read the report as calling upon the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to base her determination as to appropriate supervision 
standards on sound scientific outcome data--a principle which is at the 
core of S. 818, which was to assure that Medicare beneficiaries will 
continue to receive the highest quality medical care--one which I am 
sure is shared by every member of this body--and the Senator from 
Nevada and I think adoption of the report will help us attain this 
objective.
  Preliminary data from recent outcome research has suggested that 
supervision of anesthesia care by physicians trained in that discipline 
represents an important factor in anesthesia safety, and we want to be 
certain that the Secretary takes the final results of this research 
into account. Medicare beneficiaries have resoundingly said, in 
response to recent national surveys, that they favor retention of the 
current supervision rule, and in our view, any change in that rule must 
be supported by scientific data showing that anesthesia safety for our 
nation's seniors would not be impaired. We congratulate the committees 
with jurisdiction over Medicare in the House and Senate for their clear 
commitment to this view.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as the Senate finally concludes its work 
for the legislative year, I want to outline my position on a few of the 
final issues. Unfortunately, I needed to travel back to Washington 
state to attend the funeral of my good friend and mentor, Pat McMullen, 
and missed three votes.
  Before leaving, I voted in favor of the ``motion to proceed'' to the 
omnibus appropriations bill, which also included fixes to the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997 and the tax extenders package. With that vote, I 
registered my support for this important funding and corrections bill. 
I also would have voted in favor of the Work Incentives Act.
  First, I would like to address just some important provisions in the 
omnibus appropriations bill. There are many things that we do here that 
have little direct impact on the lives of real people and real 
families. However, this legislation is one of those times when we act 
to provide real help and real hope to working families, children and 
our senior citizens.
  The package that we are about to enact, provides an additional $2 
billion

[[Page S15029]]

investment in the National Institutes of Health (NIH). There are few 
people in this country who are not touched in some way by the research 
supported by NIH. An additional $2 billion keeps us on track to 
doubling our investment in medical research. Research that saves lives 
and prevents human suffering. Our investment has already brought us 
closer to finding a cure for devastating diseases like Parkinson's, 
leukemia, heart disease, and breast cancer. We must continue this 
commitment as this investment is about saving dollars and lives. The 
impact on Washington state is also significant. I am proud of the fact 
that Washington state is one of the top recipients of NIH grants. The 
outstanding research being conducted at research institutions like the 
University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center 
are known throughout the world. We are truly a world leader in medical 
research.
  This appropriations package will also provide additional resources to 
improve access to quality health care for the uninsured and the most 
vulnerable. The additional funding for the Centers for Disease Control 
(CDC) and the additional $100 million provided for Community Health and 
Migrant Health Care Centers provide a critical health care safety net 
for those working families who simply cannot afford insurance. There 
are more than 80 clinics in Washington state providing quality, 
affordable health care services who will be able to expand and meet the 
growing needs of the uninsured populations.
  I am pleased we have been successful in providing, for the first 
time, a direct appropriation to support poison control efforts and 
education and training for Children's Hospitals. I have been a long 
time proponent of these efforts and recognize the importance of this 
investment in our children.
  Overall, this appropriations package includes a $34.5 billion 
investment in health care programs. This investment will strengthen the 
public health infrastructure, provide essential prevention and 
treatment services to individuals with mental illness and ensure that 
our senior citizens are not forgotten. The additional $45 million 
provided to support Older Americans Act programs ensures that we can 
honor our commitment to our nation's elderly by providing important 
services like nutritional assistance, employment training, respite 
care, in-home care, and abuse prevention.

  In addition, as part of this appropriations bill, we have succeeded 
in saving quality health care for millions of Medicare beneficiaries. 
The corrections to the Balanced Budget Act address the unintended 
consequences of the reductions called for in 1997. Then, we anticipated 
a total of $100 billion over five years to ensure Medicare's solvency. 
Unfortunately, our estimates have proven incorrect and we were facing 
well over $200 billion in reductions which are impacting quality care 
for millions of seniors and the disabled. The BBA97 corrections provide 
additional resources for home health care, skilled nursing facilities, 
nursing homes, hospitals, cancer treatment centers, teaching hospitals 
like the University of Washington, community health care centers, 
rehabilitation services, and health maintenance organizations. This one 
time correction will prevent the closing of facilities or home health 
care agencies and does not jeopardize our goal of solvency for the 
Medicare Trust Fund. I know from my own health care providers and my 
own hospitals what this fix means. I also know that without it, rural 
health care was in real jeopardy. I told my constituents that I would 
not leave for the year until we acted to address the looming crisis. 
This has been accomplished in a bipartisan and comprehensive manner.
  I would also like to address the tax extenders package included in 
this bill. I generally support the tax extenders package. It includes 
the expansion of some tax credits that I have strongly supported over 
the years. First, the research and experimentation tax credit 
represents a critical investment for our nation. If we are to continue 
creating more and higher-paying jobs for American workers, we must 
encourage the business community to invest in research and development. 
This bill does just that. I have cosponsored two bills to make the R&E 
tax credit permanent, so I look forward to working with my colleagues 
to make that happen.
  I am also pleased this legislation includes extensions of the 
Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which 
help us move toward our goal of ensuring that all Americans benefit 
from the new economy.
  This extenders package also includes an extension of employer 
provided educational assistance. I am disappointed the package does not 
include compensation for graduate school assistance. I believe this 
commission is short-sighted. At a time when the American economy is so 
rapidly changing, we need to ensure that our workforce is able to meet 
the demands of the new economy.
  Our tax code should also reflect our commitment to cleaner energy. 
While this package extends the wind and biomass tax credit, it does not 
expand the definition of biomass to include open loop biomass. 
Meanwhile, it expands the code to include incentives for the production 
of energy from chicken waste. I have no doubt that some of my 
colleagues are trying to address legitimate animal waste issues in 
their states. However, if the code is to be expanded, it should be 
expanded to include open loop biomass. If Congress considers major tax 
legislation next year, this should be a top priority.
  While the efforts I have mentioned above help businesses and the 
poor, the bill also helps middle class Americans. In 1997, we passed 
important non-refundable tax credits, like the child tax credit, that 
have greatly benefitted the middle class. This legislation will ensure 
families can continue to use these credits without being affected by 
the alternative minimum tax.
  Finally, the Senate passed another piece of important legislation 
today: the Work Incentives Act. The WIA bill rewards those disabled 
individuals who want to go back to work but face the prospect of 
falling off the so called ``health care cliff.'' We have been 
successful in treating many illnesses and injuries that once 
permanently disabled workers. They may not be cured but can be 
productive. Unfortunately, if they do try and return to work they lose 
their link to life, their health insurance. This legislation, of which 
I am proud to have been an original cosponsor, will allow workers to 
return to work and continue to receive Medicare. It will also allow 
many to buy-in to Medicaid. This legislation is not just about giving 
people the chance to return to some kind of productive life. It is 
about saving precious dollars as well. Workers who give up their Social 
Security disability payments to go back to work will be paying taxes 
and contributing to the Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund. This 
is a win-win for all of us. It is also the kind of policy that simply 
makes sense. People should not be penalized for trying to go back to 
work.
  Mr. President, I have voted in support of the motion to proceed to 
this omnibus appropriations, B.B.A. of '97, and tax extenders package. 
I am particularly pleased we have been able to secure yet another year 
of commitment to our children by helping reduce class sizes in the 
early grades. I will be working hard to ensure this important program 
is authorized in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act next year. 
I must also note extreme disappointment in the decision to pit United 
Nations dues against women's reproductive health care. I remain 
committed to family planning throughout the world and will be working 
with the administration to ensure the United States continues to lead 
the way in protecting women's health, including our reproductive 
health.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support 
for this final Appropriations package. This is a good package that 
protects the Social Security surplus from being raided to pay for non-
Social Security spending, that provides sufficient funds for important 
national programs, and which addresses critical issues specifically for 
Michigan. I trust that the President will be able to sign this quickly 
and get these Fiscal Year 2000 funds to the programs that will disburse 
them to Michiganians as soon as possible.
   Mr. President, I am confident that this package will not raid the 
Social Security surplus as has been the norm for almost 30 years. The 
Congressional Leadership and the Administration

[[Page S15030]]

have crafted a package of appropriations and offsets that will not 
touch the Social Security surplus The precise bookkeeping agreed upon 
by the Administration and Congress used in this bill will help regulate 
how these funds are actually spent by the government, so that we don't 
spend the Social Security surplus. These aren't gimmicks, but finely 
crafted tools necessary for the Office of Management and Budget to 
ensure that bureaucrats don't spend their funds faster than Congress 
intended, so as to protect the Social Security surplus.
  However, for those that are concerned that such tools could 
potentially be insufficient to control the rate of spending, and may in 
fact lead to the government dipping into the Social Security surplus, I 
will carefully track the revenue and outlay totals for the Federal 
Government over the next few months. And if it appears that we are 
falling behind in maintaining a sufficient buffer to protect the Social 
Security surplus, then I will immediately introduce and push for as 
large of a rescission package as necessary to prevent that from 
occurring. But that, in my opinion, will not be necessary. Already for 
the first month of Fiscal Year 2000, the Congressional Budget Office is 
reporting that we are running $6.4 billion ahead of last year, or 
almost $77 billion more in net revenue than last year. Considering the 
CBO estimated that net revenues would actually drop by $1 billion 
between Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000, I believe we will have more than 
enough of a non-Social Security surplus buffer to accommodate even the 
worst case assumptions that CBO may put forward.
  As a specific note, Mr. President, one of the tools used to control 
spending in this package is an across-the-board 0.38 percent cut in 
discretionary spending. Although I would rather see specific cuts to 
achieve the $1.3 billion in fiscal discipline provided by this cut, 
such as cutting in half the funding for the Space Station, this is a 
modest enough cut to be palatable, especially considering the 
significant latitude given the executive agencies in finding these 
cuts. However, because of the vagaries of the budget process, the pay 
of Congressional Members has been exempted from this cut. I cannot 
support such unequal treatment, and declare that I will return an equal 
proportion of my Senatorial pay to the Department of Treasury. Nothing 
else would be fair.
  But this package is not just about what it does not do. Mr. 
President, this appropriations package does a great deal of good as 
well. It increases funding for Head Start by over 10%, while providing 
over $35 billion for education in general, including funds for 100,000 
new teachers while also significantly expanding the discretion local 
school districts will have to use that money for teacher testing and 
quality training. It will put 50,000 more police on our streets as well 
as providing over $2.1 billion for assistance programs to local law 
enforcement agencies. The National Institute of Health will see its 
funding increased by 15% to almost $18 billion, while important high-
tech legislation that I sponsored to stop the poaching of corporate and 
identifiable World Wide Web address names by unscrupulous profiteers 
and carpet-baggers does not continue unimpeded.
  And maybe most significantly, the unintended effects upon Medicare 
and Medicaid of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, as well as the onerous 
additional regulations levied by the Health Care Financing Agency in 
implementing that Act, will be softened through the provision of over 
$27 billion in additional health care funds over the next 10 years. 
This will provide specific relief for Michigan's hospitals by easing 
the reductions in the reimbursements they receiving for treating our 
Medicare beneficiaries in Michigan, and thereby expanding the access 
for quality medical care. It will also increase the unrealistically low 
reimbursement rates set for Skilled Nursing Facility care, while also 
ensuring that the arbitrary $1,500 per patient cap on physical and 
rehabilitative therapy set by the Administration is not allowed to deny 
our seniors the help they need to recover from such debilitating 
conditions as strokes and severe heart conditions. It improves the 
ability of women to receive pap smear tests, provides greater access to 
renal dialysis treatment, while also making immunosuppressive drugs 
more readily available. And it provides very much needed protection for 
Rural Health Clinics and Federally Qualified Health Centers from 
capricious reductions in their reimbursements, thereby allowing them to 
protect the uninsured and Medicare dependent population that they 
overwhelmingly serve.

  But, Mr. President, this package is good for Michigan is well as our 
nation. A number of issues that significantly affect my constituents 
are addressed in this package. Our unique Great Lakes environment is 
protected through the continued funding of the Great Lakes 
Environmental Research Laboratory, increased funding for the Great 
Lakes Fishery Commission, Sea Lamprey control, and Sea Grant Research 
funds, as well as funding for a new simulator at the Great Lakes 
Maritime Academy in Traverse City to ensure our commercial shipping 
maintains its peerless safety record. This appropriations package funds 
worthy projects such as Detroit's Focus:HOPE information technology 
training program for the city's poorest residents, Central Michigan's 
charter school and education performance institute, Northern Michigan's 
Olympics Training Facility, and almost $2.5 million in funding to 
protect and preserve Isle Royale National Park and Keweenaw National 
Historical Park. This bill brings new Tribal funding for a new band of 
the Pottawatomi Indians and $15 million more in PILT (Payment in Lieu 
of Taxes) funds which are desperately needed by Michigan's more rural 
counties. And on the international front, this package provides almost 
$2 million to support the Middle East Peace Process through the Wye 
River Accord agreement, as well as a number of policy and funding 
initiatives overseas such as continued support for Armenia in its 
dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh and the further development of education 
and infrastructure in Lebanon.
  Mr. President, many will try to make political hay out of opposing 
this bill for this or that various reason. But on the whole, this final 
appropriations package achieves three very important goals: it stops 
the 30-year raid by big Washington spenders on the Social Security 
Trust Fund, it adequately funds important national priorities, and it 
addresses several specific programs in Michigan important to my 
constituents. We were sent to Washington to govern, Mr. President, and 
at this point in the session, I asked myself if I was going to be an 
effective legislator, or simply a politician. I'm glad I chose the 
former in supporting this bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the appropriation for the Department of 
Education includes an additional $134 million, added during final 
negotiations over the bill, to promote school accountability and 
improvement under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965, which funds educational services to educationally 
disadvantaged children. These funds will provide critical resources to 
schools most in need--those in need of improvement and identified for 
corrective action under Title I.
  Dedicated funds are necessary to develop improvement strategies and 
to hold schools accountable for continuous student improvement. The 
federal government directs over $8 billion dollars of federal funding 
to provide critical support programs for disadvantaged students under 
Title I, but the accountability provisions in Title I have not been 
adequately implemented due to insufficient resources. Title I 
authorizes state school support teams to provide support for schoolwide 
programs and to provide assistance to schools in need of improvement 
through activities such as professional development or identifying 
resources for changing instruction and organization. In 1998, only 
eight states reported that school support terms have been able to serve 
the majority of schools identified as in need of improvement. Less than 
half of the schools identified as being in need of improvement in 1997-
98 reported that this designation led to additional professional 
development or assistance. Schools and school districts need additional 
support and resources to address weaknesses soon after they are 
identified, promote a progressively intensive range of interventions 
and continuously assess the results of interventions.
  The money provided in this appropriations bill can be used to ensure

[[Page S15031]]

that school districts have necessary resources available to implement 
the corrective action provisions of Title I, by providing immediate, 
intensive interventions to turn around low-performing schools. The 
types of intervention that the school district could provide using 
these funds include:
  (1) Purchasing necessary materials such as up-to-date textbooks, 
curriculum, technology;
  (2) Providing intensive, ongoing teacher training.
  (3) Providing access to distance learning;
  (4) Extending learning time for students--after school, Saturday or 
summer school--to help students catch up;
  (5) Providing rewards to low-performing schools that show significant 
progress; and
  (6) Intensive technical assistance from teams of experts outside the 
school to help develop and implement school improvement plans in 
failing schools. The terms would determine the causes of low-
performance--for example, low expectations and an outdated curriculum, 
poorly trained teachers, unsafe conditions) and assist in implementing 
research-based models for improvement.
  The portion of the bill relating to these additional funds also 
requires that school districts give students in Title I schools the 
option of transferring to another public school if the schools they 
attend have been identified as in need of improvement. This requirement 
applies only to districts that receive a portion of this additional 
money, and not to districts that do not accept these additional funds. 
While I have a bill that is supportive of right to transfer at the 
corrective action stage of the Title I accountability system, it is my 
understanding that the language in this appropriation bill apples only 
to schools accepting funding from this new funding source of $134 
million.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is very unfortunate that the Senate 
finds itself in virtually the same position as we did last year with 
appropriations matters. As my colleagues will recall, we voted on a 
giant omnibus appropriations bill which contained eight appropriations 
bills, plus numerous other authorizing legislation. It ran on for 
nearly 4,000 pages and weighed in at some 40 pounds. It was called a 
``gargantuan monstrosity'' by the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia, Senator Byrd.
  But it was a monstrosity not just because of its length. It was also 
in the size of its insult to the democratic process, to individual 
Senators, and to the people they represent.
  It was bad enough that no Senator was able to read the bill before 
they were required to vote on it. Worse still was the fact the bill was 
presented to the Senate in a ``take it or leave it'' form. No 
amendments were permitted. Every Senator was effectively muzzled.
  I voted against that bill. Not because it didn't contain good 
provisions, good for the country, and good for my State of Montana. It 
did. I opposed that bill because writing such an important piece of 
legislation should not be done behind closed doors among a small group 
of people with no recourse for the others. I said at the time that the 
process dangerously disenfranchised most Senators, House Members, and 
the American people.
  Many of my colleagues agreed with my sentiments then. And there were 
statements that this would not happen again. But it has.
  True, this bill is somewhat shorter. It covers only five 
appropriations bills, not eight. It has fewer authorizing bills 
attached to it.
  However, it still was written largely by a relatively few people, 
members of the majority, representatives from the Administration, a few 
members of the minority. And all behind closed doors, again.
  But the bigger danger this year is that we are passing major bills by 
reference. The text of four appropriations bills and four authorizing 
bills appears nowhere in this bill. Instead, this bill provides for 
their enactment by referring to them by number and date of 
introduction, which just so happens to be less than 48 hours ago.
  Members of the Senate do not have this language before them. Even if 
we could offer amendments, how would we do it? How can you amend a bill 
that is included only by reference? Even more fundamentally, will bills 
that are enacted into law ``by reference'' withstand a Constitutional 
challenge that they violate the presentment clause?
  The courts will have to decide the Constitutional issues. But it is 
one more reason why I believe this is a very dangerous process. It 
further erodes the rights of the minority, indeed the rights of all 
Senators. Coming, as I do, from a state with a small population, we 
depend greatly on the Senate to protect our states' interest, something 
that cannot always be done in the House of Representatives, where 
population determines voting power.
  Mr. President, we already face a population that is increasingly 
cynical of government and those who serve it. People believe more and 
more that government does not look after their interests, but only 
after special interests. And the more we operate behind closed doors, 
without an open, public process, the more we feed that cynicism. And 
the more we encourage mistrust.
  That is not healthy for our democracy or our people. One of the best 
things Montanans did when we rewrote our State constitution in 1972 was 
to require open government, at all levels. It has helped keep 
government officials honest and helped the people have faith in that 
government. I wish this process were as open.
  Someday, I hope that the Congress will return to the open process on 
appropriations bills and authorizing bills we had not so long ago. We 
could debate issues, offer amendments, make compromises, win, lose. But 
all in front of the people.
  But this bill goes too far in the other direction and therefore, I 
cannot support it.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as we near the end of this session of 
Congress, there are some accomplishments we should celebrate and some 
disappointments we should work to remedy in the next session of the 
106th Congress. While there are many items in the appropriations and 
tax bills that benefit our nation, there are a few I'd like to 
highlight. This year's final budget package will continue to provide 
more crime reduction and school safety funding so our children are 
safer in their neighborhoods and in their schools. It will continue our 
efforts to reduce class size so our children get more individualized 
attention from a top-quality teacher. And it will provide what I hope 
will be the first installment of school modernization funding so that 
our children's schools are safe and equipped for the future.
  With the passage of the appropriations and tax measures this session, 
Congress will uphold its commitment to continue reducing crime on our 
streets and in our schools. We've come a long way from the original 
Senate committee bill that would have killed the COPS initiative, which 
has placed 100,000 new police officers in our communities since 1994. 
This year's appropriations bill provides enough funding to hire another 
50,000 officers over the next few years, and it sets aside $225 million 
in Department of Justice funding for school safety initiatives. The 
first obligation of government is to provide for the safety of every 
man, woman, and child, and I believe our funding levels for COPS and 
school safety programs live up to that obligation.
  We will also be living up to the commitment we made last year to hire 
100,000 new teachers so our children's class sizes are smaller and 
their individual time with their teachers is greater. We made a down 
payment last year and hired 29,000 teachers. This year, we will provide 
$1.3 billion to states so we can keep those teachers in the classroom 
and hire even more. But as we all know, school systems can't hire new 
teachers if they don't have the extra classrooms. So, I'm especially 
pleased that we have finally recognized the school infrastructure 
crisis in America.
  The tax package we will pass today will provide an additional $800 
million in zero interest bonds under the Qualified Zone Academy Bond 
Initiative. These bonds will help our neediest schools renovate 
buildings that are relics of the past and turn them into schools of the 
future. It will help them purchase new equipment--from classroom 
computers to new, safe school buses. It will help them train teachers 
and develop challenging curricula to raise expectations and achievement 
scores of our nation's students.

[[Page S15032]]

  The continuation of this school renovation initiative is just one 
component of the school modernization bill I introduced with many 
others in July, and I am grateful to so many education, labor, and 
professional organizations for their unwavering support. I thank my 
colleagues who co-sponsored the legislation, Rep. Charlie Rangel for 
his work on similar legislation, and the administration's commitment to 
ensuring that our schools are safe and modern havens for learning. 
We're sending the right message to our nation's school boards, 
teachers, parents, and students: that we see the leaky roofs, that we 
see the cracked walls, that we see all the trailers--and that we're 
willing to help.
  But there remains much unfinished business. Over 14 million children 
attend schools in need of extensive repair or complete replacement. 
Twelve million children attend schools with leaky roofs, and 7 million 
children attend schools with safety code violations. Our schools are on 
average over forty years old. They're overcrowded, they're under-
equipped with technology, and many are unsafe. In Virginia alone, there 
are over 3,000 trailers being used to hold classes. In short, our 
national renovation needs total $112 billion and our new construction 
needs total $73 billion. Given these tremendous needs, I view the $800 
million in the this year's tax package as the first installment of the 
nationwide renovation and modernization of our children's schools.
  Mr. President, the other major disappointment of this session 
concerns one of our nation's most important transportation arteries. I 
am quite dismayed that this Congress has not lived up to its 
responsibility to fund the replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. 
This is the only federally owned bridge in the entire country. It is a 
major gateway in the Washington metropolitan area, and a critical route 
for commerce along the entire east coast. We have an obligation to 
support its replacement.
  I worked closely with the administration to advance this project, and 
I was gratified by the fact that funding was among the administration's 
top priorities during the budget negotiations. Unfortunately, however, 
Congress declined to provide funding, so we will revisit the issue next 
year, when construction is scheduled to begin. We have become all too 
familiar with the devastating effects of traffic jams in this area--on 
our economy, on our environment, and most importantly, on our quality 
of life. The unresolved matter of funding for the Woodrow Wilson 
Memorial Bridge project continues to threaten the region, and I intend 
to continue the fight next session to be fiscally responsible and 
responsive to our region's biggest transportation need.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the two bills we passed today--the tax 
extenders bill and the Omnibus Appropriations Act--like this entire 
session of Congress, can be summarized by four words: the good, the 
bad, the missing, and the undone.
  Let me begin with the good, because we have achieved victories on 
several important Democratic priorities. Funding for after-school 
programs was more than doubled. As a result, there will be spaces for 
675,000 young people.
  In another priority of mine, the days of the sweet deal for the big 
oil companies will be over next March 15. At that time, the Interior 
Department will finally be allowed to issue a regulation to ensure that 
oil companies pay their fair share of oil royalties to the federal 
government when they drill on federal land, ending the $66 million 
annual loss to the taxpayers.
  I was also pleased to see a 42 percent increase in funding for the 
lands program, known as the Lands Legacy Initiative. Most of this money 
will be used to acquire lands and historical sites so that they can be 
preserved for future generations.
  There are other good things as part of the budget agreement: funding 
to reduce elementary school class sizes; putting 6600 cops on the 
streets and in the schools; paying the arrears the United States owes 
to the United Nations; debt relief for developing countries; full 
funding for the Middle East Peace Agreement; a $2.3 billion increase in 
funding for the National Institutes of Health; correcting problems with 
Medicare funding that were part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, so 
that we ensure seniors continue to have access to health care, 
particularly home health care and nursing home care; a $108 million 
increase in funding for nutrition assistance for pregnant women and 
infants; extension of some important tax credits, including the 
Research and Experimentation Tax Credit, employer-provided educational 
assistance, and trade adjustment assistance; and most of the anti-
environmental riders were stripped out of the bill or were 
significantly weakened.
  But, Mr. President, despite these good things, I am voting against 
the bill because of the bad things as well as the things that are 
missing.
  First, let me comment on the process. If the Republican controlled 
Congress had done its work and passed the appropriations bills by 
October 1, which is what is supposed to happen, we would not have 
needed these protracted and secretive negotiations that gave undue 
power to just a handful of people. As my colleague from Nebraska said, 
this whole process turned government ``of the people, by the people, 
and for the people'' into ``government of and by four people''.
  I want to mention three specific provisions of this bill that I 
oppose. First, the funding for international family planning is 
inadequate. We have had level funding for this program for four years 
now. And on top of that, the omnibus appropriations bill reinstates the 
so-called Mexico City policy that prevents organizations from using 
their own, privately-raised money to provide abortion services or to 
lobby against draconian abortion laws. Under the provisions of this 
bill, the President could waive this restriction, but if he does, the 
funding would be cut $12.5 billion, which could deny contraception to 
over 40,000 women for an entire year.
  I was also extremely dismayed to find in this bill a provision that 
would allow pharmacists to deny women in federal health plans 
prescriptions for contraceptive drugs, if they claim a sort of 
``conscientious objector'' status. This is an outrageous assault on the 
right of women to receive the full range of health benefits.
  Also, this bill contains an absolutely unnecessary--and potentially 
dangerous--across the board spending cut. This cut will affect funding 
for education and health care and medical research and veterans. It is 
a silly way to do business, and it is unnecessary. Congress should have 
done its job and made the decisions about what is important and what is 
not.
  There are also a lot of holes in this legislation, a lot of things 
missing. These are things that were in there at one point or on the 
table for discussion, but for some reason were taken out. I am talking 
about the lack of hate crimes legislation, which passed the Senate. I 
am talking about my amendment, which also passed the Senate 
unanimously, to ban the sale of guns to people who are intoxicated. 
There is once again no long-term, large-scale commitment to repair 
America's schools. There is no prescription drug benefit under 
Medicare, so that millions of senior citizens will not have to make a 
choice between medicine and food. There is not enough money for after-
school programs. And the rural loan guarantee program for satellite 
TV--something that is crucial to rural communities around the country--
was taken out of the bill at the request of one senator.
  In the category of the undone, this Congress will go home for the 
year without having acted on several issues of enormous importance to 
all Americans--things that the people have said over and over again 
they want us to do. This includes: a real patients bill of rights, 
common sense gun control, campaign finance reform, and an increase in 
the minimum wage.
  Some will say that we could not do these things because we did not 
have the money. Let me point out that if this Republican-controlled 
Congress had not insisted on increasing the defense budget by about $8 
billion more than the President said we needed, then we would have had 
plenty of money to pay for both the well-deserved pay raise for our 
servicemen and women and the priorities I have just talked about.
  So, Mr. President, I regret that this bill was not all it could have 
been and that this Congress did not accomplish all that it should have. 
But, I look forward to the next session in the hope

[[Page S15033]]

that we finally address the priorities of the American people.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to quote Yogi Berra, it's deja vu all over 
again. A little less than a year ago Congress passed an Omnibus 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. That legislation combined 
eight separate appropriations bills and included $200 billion in 
discretionary spending. Last year's Omnibus spending bill also included 
$21 billion in emergency spending--$13 billion of which directly 
reduced the surplus for Fiscal Year 1999 and $5 billion of which 
reduced the surplus for Fiscal Year 2000. Members decried the process 
that led to last year's bill, threw themselves on the mercy of the 
American public asking forgiveness, and vowed that it would never 
happen again.
  One senior Republican, speaking on condition of anonymity about the 
level of frustration with last year's budget process, said earlier this 
year: ``We are looking for ways to avoid what happened last year. We 
are determined not to go through that again this year.'' Unfortunately, 
Mr. President, here we are again--only worse. This year's bill clearly 
demonstrates that Congress has not learned from its past mistakes.
  What makes this bill even more insidious is that we not only repeat 
last year's mistakes, but in fact, build upon them with even more 
creative ways to flaunt fiscal discipline. For that reason, I will 
oppose it.
  Mr. President, I am not alone. I ask unanimous consent immediately 
after my remarks an editorial which appeared in today's Washington Post 
titled ``. . . And Brought Forth a Mouse'' be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See 
exhibit 1.)
  I fully understand, Mr. President, that we work with budget 
projections that are subject to revision as economic factors change. We 
must base our decisions, however, using reasonable assumptions of what 
will occur, not rosy expectations of what the future might bring. The 
beginning of this congressional session was filled with opportunity--
opportunity brought about by 5 years of fiscal discipline. That 
discipline helped to fuel a strong economy and produce the first budget 
surplus in more than a generation. Indeed, budget surpluses are 
projected far into the future.
  Instead of seizing this opportunity to use those resources in 
improving our long-term fiscal future, Congress seems content to 
fritter them away on short-term political giveaways. A strong economy 
and favorable budget outlook give Congress a wonderful opportunity to 
make important investments for our future. What are some of those 
investments?
  Early in 1999, Democrats and Republicans stated that saving Social 
Security and strengthening Medicare were the first items of business on 
this year's legislative agenda. The President made this statement 
during his State of the Union Address earlier this year:
  ``Now, last year we wisely reserved all of the surplus until we knew 
what it would take to save Social Security. Again, I say, we shouldn't 
spend any of it--not any of it--until after Social Security is truly 
saved. First things first.''
  My colleagues may remember that we followed the President's statement 
with a considerable amount of applause. Both commitments--extending the 
solvency of Social Security and strengthening Medicare--have been 
ignored. Both American political parties are identified co-conspirators 
in this unsavory result. There will be no structural changes to extend 
the solvency of the Social Security program. In fact, the most positive 
Social Security achievement we can cite underscores our failure to 
solve this important problem.
  The only meaningful step Congress has taken to improve Social 
Security is an agreement not to spend the Social Security surplus--an 
agreement, I might add, that we have violated to the tune of $17 
billion. The culmination of these negotiations will result in a budget 
that reduces the federal debt by $130 billion. That debt reduction, 
however, would have been $168 billion had we remained true to our 
commitment to save Social Security first. We could have reduced the 
Federal debt by an additional $38 billion had we not spent the full $21 
billion on-budget surplus and $17 billion of the Social Security 
surplus. But even had we kept this promise, it would have done nothing 
to extend the program's insolvency date of 2034. Accomplishing that 
goal will require additional resources--resources that could come from 
the on-budget surpluses as long as they can be preserved.
  Mr. President, we must hold true to our commitment to ensure Social 
Security's solvency until 2075. Our actions on Medicare are even more 
deplorable. We started this year with the goal of extending the 
solvency of the Medicare Trust fund and possibly expanding the benefits 
for beneficiaries, such as providing a prescription drug benefit. 
Instead, however, we've gone backwards. The Medicare benefit package 
has not been modernized. Efforts to rationalize the program have been 
rejected.
  Finally, and perhaps most disappointingly, the solvency of the 
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund has been reduced by 1 year. Estimates at 
the beginning of this year placed the date of insolvency for the 
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund in Fiscal Year 2015. As a result of the 
unfunded additional Medicare spending included in this bill, the 
insolvency date has moved forward to Fiscal Year 2014.
  Not only were we unfaithful to the commitments we made regarding 
Social Security and Medicare, we missed other opportunities to make 
constructive use of the on-budget surplus.
  Mr. President, we could have further strengthened the economy by 
pursuing tax reform. We could have made critical investments to protect 
our national treasures such as the National Park system. Or we could 
have reduced the disgraceful number of Americans, particularly 
children, who don't have access to health care. These proposals have 
one thing in common--a bold, coherent vision. This final appropriations 
bill and its blizzard of special interest handouts reflects no such 
vision. It contains no bold initiatives worthy of the 21st century. 
Instead it fritters away a substantial portion of the surplus--
squandering resources that could instead be used to build a better 
future.
  Mr. President, how did we get here? At the beginning of the year, CBO 
projected the FY 2000 on-budget surplus to be $21 billion. In May 
Congress passed a supplemental appropriations bill providing $15 
billion for reconstruction aid for Central America and the Caribbean, 
assistance to Jordan pursuant to the Wye River accords, farm loan 
assistance, and funding for our operations in Kosovo. Much of the May 
supplemental bill was designated as an emergency and thus was not 
offset with corresponding spending reductions or revenue increases.
  The consequence of that legislation was a $15 billion reduction in 
the non-Social Security surplus--$7 billion of which reduced the FY 
2000 on-budget surplus. Passage of the May Supplemental transformed a 
$21 billion surplus into a $14 billion surplus. In August, Congress 
passed the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill that 
included more than $8 billion of ``emergency'' spending. Like the 
Supplemental before it, these ``emergency'' funds were not offset with 
corresponding spending reductions or revenue increases.
  Therefore, this spending directly reduced the FY 2000 surplus. A $14 
billion on-budget surplus quickly shrunk to $6 billion.
  In October, Congress considered the appropriations bill covering the 
Defense Department. Incredibly, that legislation designated funding for 
routine operations and maintenance as an emergency. That designation, 
as with those proceeding it, means that the no offsets were required. 
No offsets, however, does not mean that the spending does not have a 
real economic effect. The emergency spending included in the Defense 
Appropriations bill further reduced the Fiscal Year 2000 on-budget 
surplus by $5 billion, which the next column in my chart illustrates.
  Mr. President, by the end of October Congress' voracious spending 
reduced the on-budget surplus from $21 billion to $1 billion. With 
passage of this Omnibus appropriations bill, Congress will not only 
complete its assault on the on-budget surplus but also begin its raid 
on the Social Security surplus.

[[Page S15034]]

The $21 billion on-budget surplus projected for FY 2000 has vanished. 
In addition, this Omnibus bill spends $17 billion of the FY 2000 Social 
Security surplus.
  Mr. President, no amount of budget trickery or accounting slight of 
hand can hide these facts. Those attempting to obscure this reality 
will soon be exposed. At the end of the year the Congressional Budget 
Office will total up the cost of our actions and tell us how they 
affected the national debt. The debt will no doubt be reduced in Fiscal 
Year 2000. Because of these budgetary tricks and shenanigans, however, 
we will miss the opportunity to make an even more substantial reduction 
in the national debt and the burden it imposes on our Nation. Worse 
yet, we have already staked claims against the on-budget surpluses 
projected beyond next year.
  For example, at the beginning of the fiscal year the discretionary 
spending limit was $572 billion. With this bill, actual spending will 
be closer to $610 billion. If we assume that Congress maintains this 
level of spending--$610 billion--for each of the next ten years, CBO's 
projected on-budget surplus of $996 billion shrinks by $145 billion. 
These are the on-budget surpluses CBO projected in July assuming we 
would adhere to the discretionary spending caps.
  The orange bars show the surpluses we can expect if we hold freeze 
spending at the levels established for Fiscal Year 2000 for each of the 
next four years.
  As my colleagues can see, it is increasingly unlikely that the large 
on-budget surpluses over which we salivated throughout the summer will 
materialize.
  In addition, this budget agreement contains other items--Medicare 
spending and tax breaks--which are not offset by either spending 
reductions or additional revenues.
  The Omnibus appropriations bill includes changes to the Medicare 
reimbursement rules which increase Medicare spending by $1 billion in 
Fiscal Year 2000 and $27 billion over the next ten years.
  That increased spending will come directly out of the Social Security 
surplus in Fiscal Year 2000 and from the on-budget surplus in later 
years.
  This afternoon we will consider a bill to extend certain expired 
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
  Earlier this month, the Senate passed legislation that extended these 
provisions on a fiscally responsible basis.
  That bill was fully offset, and as such, would not have jeopardized 
the on-budget surplus.
  I regret that the product coming out of the Conference is not as 
responsible.
  The ``extenders'' bill before us today will reduce the on-budget 
surplus over the next ten years by $18 billion.
  These spending commitments--a higher discretionary spending baseline 
as a result of the Fiscal Year 2000 appropriations bills, the extenders 
bill and the BBA addbacks--will spend almost 20 percent of the $996 
billion on-budget surplus projected for the next ten years.
  In fact, Mr. President, the additional spending as a result of the 
BBA addbacks and the lost revenue from the extenders bill are likely to 
completely wipe out the Fiscal Year 2001 surplus.
  CBO projects that Medicare spending will increase by $6 billion in 
Fiscal Year 2001 as a result of this bill.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the ``extenders'' 
legislation will reduce revenues in Fiscal Year 2001 by $3 billion.
  That $9 billion cost is greater than the $3 billion on-budget surplus 
that will remain in Fiscal Year 2001 assuming spending for that year is 
frozen at this year's levels.
  Mr. President, what did we buy with this torrent of spending?
  Certainly some positive things are included in this legislation.
  I am deeply concerned, however, with many of the provisions in this 
gargantuan bill and their implications for our future.
  Let me give you two examples.


                              yellowstone

  Many of the decisions reflected in this agreement were made in 
isolation and will have unexpected negative consequences.
  The individual operating budgets for the national parks have not been 
adjusted to accommodate the full 4.8 percent federal employee pay 
raise.
  Instead, their budgets reflect only a pay raise of 4.4 percent.
  The additional 0.4 percent must be absorbed through reductions in the 
remainder of their budgets--principally operations and maintenance.
  The parks must absorb an additional 0.4% reduction as a result of the 
across-the-board cut included in this bill.
  Yellowstone National Park's budget is $24 million--90 percent of 
which goes to pay salaries.
  The combination of the pay raise shortfall and the across-the-board 
cut will force a reduction of $200,000 from the operations and 
maintenance accounts.
  Why is this important?
  Yellowstone National Park was included as one of this year's ten most 
endangered parks by the National Parks and Conservation Association.
  It has been referred to as ``the poster child for the neglect that 
has marred our national parks.''
  The policies established in this bill, combined with the previously 
adopted pay raise, raise serious concerns that the quality of our 
national parks will continue to decline.
  I do not allege that anyone started out with this goal, but the 
consequences of this budget agreement may have that result.
  I suspect this example of Yellowstone National Park will be repeated 
throughout the federal government.


                              bba addbacks

  This bill also represents a triumph of special interests.
  Having previously beaten back the Patient's Bill of Rights 
legislation, the managed care industry uses this bill to further 
advance its financial position.
  $8.7 billion of the $27 billion of additional Medicare spending in 
this bill will go to the HMO industry.
  Mr. President, what this means is nearly one-third of the Medicare 
money in this bill will go to the managed-care industry even though 
they only cover one-sixth of the beneficiaries.
  This comes at a time when the General Accounting Office and Medpac 
say that HMOs are being overpaid, not underpaid, by Medicare.
  I find it strange, Mr. President, that lobbyists for the managed care 
industry came to Capitol Hill crying for help when they tell their 
shareholders a very different story.
  Let me read excerpts from a few HMOs' recent press releases.
  For example, Pacificare said this in its press release announcing its 
third quarter earnings: ``We posted strong revenue growth * * * due to 
membership growth and favorable premium pricing. Our confidence in and 
outlook on the future is very positive.'' (Oct. 27, 1999)
  Aetna had this to say: ``This is the seventh consecutive quarter of 
growth in operating earnings per share for Aetna * * * Aetna U.S. 
Healthcare continued to post solid commercial HMO membership 
increases.'' (Oct. 28, 1999)
  United Health Group made the following bold proclamation: ``Our 
strong results continue to be driven by a balanced combination of 
growth, operating margin expansion, and capital structure enhancement. 
We look for ongoing progression in these key areas as we move into and 
through the year 2000.'' (Nov. 3, 1999)
  These are surprisingly upbeat statements coming from an industry that 
came to Congress crying the blues.
  The Medicare section of this bill has other deficiencies.
  An opportunity for reform through competitive-bidding of the HMO 
industry was cut off at the knees in a midnight assault.
  This bill includes language prohibiting the Secretary of HHS to 
negotiate with durable medical equipment providers to secure better 
prices for the Medicare program and Medicare beneficiaries.
  By putting off the implementation of these provisions, possibly for 
years, we are taking millions of potential savings out of the pockets 
of Medicare beneficiaries.
  The question members of Congress must ponder over the coming holidays 
is how to avoid a repeat of this awful process next year.
  I hope that the FY 2001 budget will be one that I can support.
  In order for that to occur, next year's budget must start with a 
bipartisan process.

[[Page S15035]]

  This first 10 months of this year were spent with the President and 
Congress ignoring each other's existence.
  Only during the past ten days--fully 40 days after the fiscal year 
end--did the two sides begin negotiating a conclusion to this year's 
budget clash.
  We must break the cycle of end-of-the-year budget showdowns that 
produce nothing but partisan rancor.
  We must also press for budget reforms that will ensure the bad habits 
of the past two years do not become institutionalized.
  While there are many targets for reform, at the top of the list is 
the need to change the manner in which we designate certain spending as 
an ``emergency''.
  Two-thirds of the reduction of this year's surplus--more than $25 
billion--happened because Congress overrode fiscal discipline by using 
``emergency'' designations.
  Senator Snowe of Maine and I have introduced legislation that would 
establish permanent safeguards to protect the surplus from questionable 
``emergency'' uses.
  Specifically, that legislation would do the following:
  1. Create a 60-vote point of order that prevents non-emergency items 
from being included in emergency spending bills.
  2. Create a 60-vote point of order that allows members to challenge 
the validity of items that are designated as ``emergencies.''
  3. Require a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate for the passage of 
any bill that contains ``emergency'' spending.
  Given that next year is a Presidential election year, it is unlikely 
that much will be accomplished.
  An issue that will receive a great deal of attention in next year's 
election will be how best to use the on-budget surplus.
  Several Presidential candidates have already outlined proposals that 
envision using the on-budget surplus for larger goals.
  Vice President Gore supports the President's proposal for using some 
of the on-budget surplus to extend the solvency of the Social Security 
program.
  He has also outlined a series of steps to expand health care coverage 
to the uninsured.
  Senator Bradley has championed a plan to extend health care coverage 
to 95% percent of the nearly 45 million uninsured adults and children.
  Governor Bush supports cuts in marginal tax rates, reductions in the 
so-called marriage penalty, and the elimination of the estate tax.
  Senator McCain would dedicate a portion of the surplus to tax cuts 
and transitioning the Social Security program to one that incorporates 
individual accounts.
  Incidentally, Senator McCain characterized this deal as ``a scathing, 
unconscionable depiction of the way we do business in Washington.''
  Other candidates have proposals--transitioning to a flat tax, 
education reform--most of which look to the on-budget surplus as a 
means of financing.
  These are all significant ideas, but if Congress continues this 
year's pattern in Fiscal Year 2001, they will be ideas starved for the 
resources to make them a reality, whomever the people elect.
  Ultimately, the American people will provide their input on this 
matter through the decision they make next November.
  Next year's budget should not short-circuit those ideas.
  Instead, the goal for next year's budget should be to protect the 
surplus and therefore preserve the options available to the next 
President.
  We must avoid a last minute, unfunded spending spree like that 
contained in the bill before us today.
  Mr. President, it is a major disappointment that we didn't exercise 
this kind of fiscal discipline in 1999.
  But when we return to inaugurate the second session of the 106th 
Congress, we will have the benefit of a new century, a new millennium, 
and a fresh start.
  I hope that we can use that opportunity to seize the future rather 
than repeating the mistakes of the past.
  This session began with great opportunities. We had a budget surplus. 
We had a strong economy. We had an opportunity to make decisions that 
have long-ranging positive effects on our economy. We have largely 
frittered away all of those opportunities.
  The President and the congressional leadership began the year by 
joint commitment that our first priority was going to be to save Social 
Security and to strengthen Medicare. What happened after we finished 
the applause at the State of the Union? What has happened is we have 
ignored both of those commitments.
  Social Security: No structural change. We have not extended by a 
second the solvency of the Social Security program. Yes, as the Senator 
from New Mexico said, we have reduced the national debt by $130 billion 
as a result of funds from the Social Security trust fund. That is the 
good news. The bad news is we should have reduced it by $168 billion, 
which is what we would have done had we preserved all of the surplus 
for strengthening Social Security and Medicare. His statement admits 
the fact that $17 billion of Social Security surplus has, in fact, been 
spent for purposes other than reducing the national debt and saving 
Social Security.
  Medicare: We have made no structural changes in Medicare. Medicare, 
in fact, has 1 year less solvency as a result of what we are doing than 
it did when we started this process in January.
  How did we get here? We got here because we have frittered away $168 
million surplus down to $130 billion by a series of, first, emergency 
spending, and then an avalanche of budget gimmickry at the end of the 
session, much of which is in the bill we are about to vote on which has 
chewed up all of the non-Social Security surplus and $17 billion of the 
Social Security surplus.
  What is the long-term consequence? The long-term consequence is we 
have already spent $190 billion of our 10-year non-Social Security 
surplus of $996 billion. One out of every $5 that we had in January for 
the non-Social Security surplus we have either spent or committed in 
the fiscal year. In fiscal year 2001, we have already spent all but $3 
billion of the over $40 billion of the non-Social Security surplus. And 
with the actions we are about to take, we are going to be into Social 
Security for the next fiscal year by over $6 billion. That is what we 
have done with all the opportunities that were available.
  I hope we will have learned from these lessons that we will apply 
some basic principles for next year, that we will try to be more 
bipartisan, that we will try to adopt some processes that will 
constrain us against the kinds of actions that have led to this sorry 
state of affairs this year, that we will commit we will exercise real 
fiscal discipline so the American people, based on who they elect as 
President in November of next year, will have an opportunity to make 
some fundamental decision.
  Do they want our surplus to be used for Social Security? Do they want 
it to be used for Medicare? Do they want it to be used for tax cuts? Do 
they want it to be used to reduce the number of Americans who do not 
have health care coverage? What are their priorities? We are spending 
the money like drunken sailors and the American people are being denied 
the opportunity to state their opinions as to what we should be doing 
with their money.
  It is with regret, as we have repeated against what we did last year, 
I must vote no on the legislation that will soon come before the Senate 
as the concluding fiscal act of 1999 and hope we will do better next 
year.

                               Exhibit 1

             [From the Washington Post, November 19, 1999]

                    . . . And Brought Forth a Mouse

       It is fitting that this legislative year should end with an 
     almost imperceptible across-the-board spending cut that will 
     not be across the board. It is hard to think of a single 
     aspect of the budget that has not been seriously 
     misrepresented in the past nine months of debate. There is 
     always a certain amount of straying from the truth in regard 
     to budgets. This year it has reached Orwellian proportions.
       The final agreement on which the House was to vote last 
     night and the Senate thereafter was touted yesterday by both 
     sides as a major achievement. The major achievement consisted 
     of no more than passage six weeks into the fiscal year of the 
     last five of the 13 regular appropriations bills on which the 
     operation of the government depends. Those 13 ordinary bills 
     are the only fiscal accomplishment of a Congress that began 
     with lofty talk on the part of the president as well as the 
     leadership of both parties of solving long-range fiscal 
     problems. They solved

[[Page S15036]]

     none. The only consolation is that, by virtue of 
     incompetence, they managed not to make any seriously worse, 
     either.
       The Republicans crow that they came through the year 
     without using the Social Security surplus to help finance the 
     rest of government. But (a) that's a non-accomplishment, in 
     the sense that the same IOUs are put in the trust fund 
     whether the surplus is used to finance other programs or pay 
     down debt. And (b) it didn't happen. They achieved the result 
     on paper only, by use of gimmicks. In some cases, they simply 
     denied that spending for which they voted--and which they 
     busily called to the voters' attention as evidence of why 
     they should be reelected--would actually occur. They 
     disappeared it. In other cases, they simply kicked it over 
     into next year. It will hugely compound their problems then. 
     There has been much talk that a new fiscal standard has been 
     obliquely adopted, whereby the rest of government, meaning 
     all but Social Security, will hereafter have to live within 
     its own means. That would be fine with us, but what this 
     year's record suggests is not a new standard to be adhered to 
     so much as a new one to be systematically lied about.
       Meanwhile, they did what they always do in writing end-of-
     session bills. They stuffed it full of goodies, using public 
     funds or power to curry favor with the folks back home. There 
     is fine print in the legislation meant to benefit Sallie Mae, 
     the giant and decidedly non-needy Student Loan Marketing 
     Association; dairy farmers; the recycling industry; 
     transplant surgeons; and who knows who else. Most of these 
     are provisions that, for good reason, could not pass on their 
     own. The president called the agreement a ``hard-won victory 
     for the American people.'' In fact, it's a shabby, showy end 
     to perhaps the least productive, nastiest and most 
     duplicitous session of Congress in modern memory. They should 
     hang their heads as they scurry home.

  Mr. FEINGOLD Mr. President, I don't know if many of my colleagues 
have actually taken the time to read the bill before us.
  If they have, they would have found some interesting provisions.
  For example, Section 1001, titled ``PAYGO Adjustments.''
  It appears at the very end of the printed text of H.R. 3194.
  There are three subsections to this provision, and from what I can 
tell, this is what they do.
  The first subsection declares that the mandatory spending that was 
folded into this bill--I believe mostly the provisions that restore 
Medicare funding--are not to be scored against the discretionary 
spending caps.
  The second subsection then declares that the Medicare funding shall 
not be scored on the PAYGO ledger.
  In other words, Mr. President, the roughly $16 billion in mandatory 
spending provided in the Medicare portions of this bill over the next 5 
years will be completely excluded from the statutory budget rules that 
require such spending to be offset.
  The last subsection, Mr. President, then zeroes out the PAYGO ledger 
entirely.
  This means that no spending in this bill and none of the net cost of 
the tax expenditures in the tax extenders bill--none of it--will be 
counted on the PAYGO ledger.
  It won't have to be offset this year, next year, or ever.
  Mr. President, what is going on here?
  Why is this language needed?
  It is needed, Mr. President, if you don't want to pay for the 
mandatory spending done in this bill or the net revenue losses in the 
tax extenders bill.
  The proponents of this language may wish to argue that they are using 
the budget surplus to pay for all of this.
  Mr. President, let me ask them: ``What surplus is that?''
  We did not have a surplus this past fiscal year.
  And given the track record of this Congress, when September 30, 2000 
rolls around, there is an excellent chance we won't have a surplus 
then, either--at least not without counting the Social Security Trust 
Fund revenues.
  Mr. President, yesterday I was pleased to add my name to a measure 
the senior Senator from Texas was circulating honoring among others the 
Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman.
  As many know, Professor Friedman made famous the phrase: ``There is 
no free lunch.''
  Well, Mr. President, I must tell my colleagues that passing a law 
declaring a free lunch will not make it so.
  Congress can declare that the Medicare provisions of this bill will 
not cost anything, but that doesn't make it true.
  Congress can declare that the tax extenders bill will not result in 
any lost revenue, but again, that will not make it true.
  Mr. President, the PAYGO Adjustments section isn't the only one that 
tries to declare a free lunch.
  We see it in the indefensible use of the so-called emergency 
designation.
  I'll take just one example, the decennial census.
  Mr. President, we have known for many years that there would be a 
census taken next year.
  In fact, it's provided for in our Constitution.
  In a very real sense, we have known for over 200 years that there 
would be a census next year.
  It comes as no surprise.
  But you wouldn't know that if you read this bill, Mr. President.
  This measure provides that nearly $4.5 billion in funding for the 
census is to be declared an emergency.
  An emergency, Mr. President.
  Who are we kidding?
  Next year's census is an emergency?
  This is nothing more than a budget gimmick to avoid having to make 
tough choices.
  Mr. President, I have no doubt there are other examples of the misuse 
of the emergency designation in this bill.
  Over the next few weeks we will probably see news stories about just 
what Congress views as an emergency.
  Mr. President, as must be painfully obvious to my colleagues by now, 
the dairy provisions alone in this bill make it completely unacceptable 
to me, and I will be voting against the bill for that reason.
  However, even if those provisions were not included in the 
legislation, I would still oppose it, and I would oppose it in part for 
the budget gimmicks that are strewn throughout it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I cannot support this budget deal because 
it spends the budget surplus, breaks our pledge to reduce the size and 
intrusiveness of the government, fails to deliver the tax relief 
American families deserve, and further imperils the Social Security 
system upon which so many Americans depend for their retirement 
security.
  The ``budget crisis'' has become an annual, end-of-the-year ritual in 
which closed-door deals produce even more fodder for public cynicism 
about their government. This budget deal short-changes American 
taxpayers and benefits special interests, illustrating once again that 
the President and a majority of the Congress would rather spend the 
budget surplus on big government, special interest giveaways, and pork-
barrel spending.
  This deal makes a mockery of our obligation to responsibly exercise 
the ``power of the purse'' conferred on the Congress by the 
Constitution.
  It busts the budget caps set just two years ago by more than $20 
billion.
  It obscures the true cost of the deal by using $36 billion in budget 
gimmickry.
  It contains nearly $14 billion in everyday, garden-variety pork-
barrel spending.
  It spends every dime of the non-Social Security surplus, instead of 
setting that money aside to provide tax relief to American families, 
and shore up Social Security and Medicare.
  It resorts to an across-the-board budget cut to avoid dipping into 
the Social Security surplus, rather than making the hard choices among 
spending priorities.
  Some people have said this year's deal is not as bad as last year's 
deal. Looking at some statistics, that could be true to a certain 
extent:
  Last year, the omnibus appropriations bill was 4,000 pages long and 
weighed over 40 pounds; this year's stack of bills is only about 1,500 
pages long but it's almost a foot high.
  Last year's deal was done 21 days late and covered 8 of the regular 
appropriations bill that funded 10 federal agencies; this year's deal 
covers only 5 of the regular spending bills for 7 agencies, but it's 50 
days overdue--more than twice as late as last year.
  Last year, the negotiators added more than $20 billion in extra 
spending; this year, they only added a little more than $6 billion.
  And last year, the whole deal was wrapped up in a single bill that 
included the text of 7 spending bills and a host of other legislation; 
this year, we are casting one vote, but it will count as a vote on each 
of 10 separate bills.

[[Page S15037]]

  I guess one could legitimately claim, based on those statistics, that 
this year's deal is not as bad as last year's deal. But like last year, 
this year's budget-busting behemoth is not amendable by any Member of 
Congress not involved in the negotiations over the past several weeks. 
Like last year, the process was deliberately designed to prevent any 
Member of Congress from changing any aspect of this back-room deal. 
What a farce.
  Mr. President, like last year, this non-amendable budget deal is 
loaded down with pork, its true cost is obscured by budget gimmickry, 
and it is weighed down by policy ``riders'' that have no place in 
budget bills.
  Before this deal was cut, the Senate had already passed spending 
bills containing over $13 billion in wasteful, unnecessary, and low-
priority spending that was added without benefit of consideration in 
the normal, merit-based review process. That's more than the $11 
billion added by Congress for Fiscal Year 1999, and almost twice the $7 
billion wasted in Fiscal Year 1998. On my website, I have published 264 
pages of pork-barrel spending projects in the appropriations bills that 
passed the Senate earlier this year.
  The bill before the Senate today contains even more everyday, garden-
variety pork-barrel spending--almost half a billion dollars more than 
in the original bills. Some items which agencies were ``encouraged'' or 
``urged'' to fund in earlier versions of these appropriations bills 
have now been earmarked for funding. Other projects that were earmarked 
in report language are now included in the bill language. Presumably, 
these further clarifications of Congressional intent were included to 
improve upon the already near certainty that these pork-barrel projects 
will be funded ahead of other projects of possibly higher priority or 
more deserving of the taxpayers' support.
  Just a few examples of new earmarks and special interest items in 
this bill include:
  $2 million for the University of Mississippi for a phytomedicine 
project.
  $1 million for the Noble Army Hospital of Alabama bio-terrorism 
program.
  $300,000 for the Vasona Center Youth Science Institute.
  $5 million for the International Law Enforcement Center for the 
Western Hemisphere in Roswell, New Mexico
  $160,000 for a Mason City, Iowa, bus facility
  $250,000 for the New York Hall of Science in Queens, New York
  $100,000 for the Philadelphia Orchestra's Philly Pops to run a jazz-
in-the-schools program in Philadelphia
  $2.5 million for the Dante-Fascell North-South Center
  $1,840,000 for Kansas buses and bus facilities (in addition to the 
$1.5 million already provided).
  Mr. President, as my colleagues know, over $7.4 billion of the pork-
barrel spending in this year's budget is in the defense budget, 
including almost $1 billion in low-priority military construction 
projects. This waste is disgraceful at a time when the Army's most 
recent assessments of its forces show none of the Army's divisions is 
rated at the highest state of readiness, or C-1. Not one of our Army 
divisions has the resources and training to undertake the wartime 
missions for which they are ordered to be ready. Shortfalls in 
personnel, parts, and funding, combined with extended deployments on 
peacekeeping and other contingency operations, have contributed to a 
serious decline that puts our soldiers at greater risk if a conflict 
were to erupt, and threatens the ability of our forces to prevail. This 
is a disgrace and an abomination that the American people will not 
tolerate.
  Mr. President, for those who wonder how these projects are paid for, 
let's look at the clever budget gimmicks that are included in this 
deal.
  First, there is the ``emergency'' spending designation, which most 
reasonable people assume should be used only for disasters, 
emergencies, and other unforeseeable happenings. Well, in this deal, 
the Congress has expanded somewhat the definition of ``emergency'' to 
include: the 2000 census, which we've known about since the 
Constitution was written, routine military training and base 
operations, and even the Head Start program.
  So-called emergencies in this year's spending bills add up to $24 
billion. Some of the uses of these funds are truly emergencies, such as 
alleviating severe economic hardship on small farmers or assisting 
those devastated by hurricanes. But over half of the emergency funds 
are designated as such in a blatant effort to avoid the discipline of 
the budget caps. The reality, however, is that ``emergency'' spending 
must still be paid for by tax revenues. And the tax revenues that will 
pay for most of these emergencies are those generated by Social 
Security taxes, that are supposed to be reserved to pay benefits for 
retirees.
  Another gimmick is the use of ``forward-funding'', whereby money is 
appropriated for projects or programs, but it cannot be spent until the 
first day of the next fiscal year. This money is not counted against 
this year's budget caps, but again, it is real spending that must be 
paid for next year, within even more stringent budget caps.
  Using the ``forward funding'' gimmick, a staggering $10 billion for 
job training, medical research, and education grants is pushed into 
next year, potentially impairing the management and effectiveness of 
these programs. In addition, the Department of Defense is directed to 
delay timely payments on its contracts to save $2 billion. This gimmick 
will result in higher costs for the Pentagon because of late payment 
fees and disruption in programs under contract.
  Mr. President, most disgraceful, however, is a new gimmick that will 
delay paychecks for all military personnel and federal civilian 
employees for three days from September 29 to October 2, 2000. For the 
sake of a few billion dollars worth of pork, the Congress is 
withholding hard-earned pay from those who volunteer to serve their 
nation in the military or as a civil servant.
  The potential impact on these men and women and their families is 
immeasurable. Many may have to pay late fees on rent or other bills and 
penalties and higher interest on credit cards. Some families, 
especially those who already are forced to subsist on food stamps, will 
have to struggle doubly hard to put food on the table while they wait 
for the Congress to pay them for their service.
  Mr. President, I find it absolutely outrageous that the Congress 
would attempt to balance this pork-laden budget deal on the backs of 
our men and women in uniform. Is this the way we show our respect and 
appreciation for those who are willing to put their lives at risk for 
all of our freedoms? Is this the way we repay the families of our 
service men and women who spend many months and years separated from 
their loved ones during wars and overseas assignments? This is 
disgraceful, and I am ashamed that the Congress would take this action 
against those whose duty and sacrifice we should honor, not abuse.
  Mr. President, I think it is important that the American public know 
that this paycheck slip gimmick--a gimmick that denies our proud men 
and women in the military, and hard-working people who work for the 
government the pay they have worked for and deserve--this gimmick does 
not affect the Congress. No one who works on Capitol Hill will get 
their paychecks even a day late. No one who was involved in negotiating 
this abominable deal--not Senators or Congressmen or their staffs--will 
get their paychecks late. Clearly, this demonstrates to the American 
people the Congress' opinion of its own importance.
  Several other gimmicks abound in this deal--transferring surplus 
funds from the Federal Reserve into general revenues, improved 
collection of student loans, and more rescissions of funding from 
various programs, totaling several billion dollars in claimed savings.
  And finally, in order to get closer to balancing the books on this 
budget deal, the negotiators picked and chose among the cost estimates 
provided by the competing budget scorekeepers for the Congress and the 
Administration, taking the lowest estimate they could find for each 
program so that they could squeeze more pork into the deal. The 
negotiators claim that their deal costs about $17 billion less the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates. What this means is that, despite 
vehement claims to the contrary, $17 billion of the Social Security 
surplus will be used to pay for the waste and largesse in

[[Page S15038]]

this budget deal. Taking another $17 billion from an already 
financially unstable Social Security system will only exacerbate the 
fears of many Americans about their retirement security.
  Ironically, Mr. President, none of these specific gimmicks yielded 
enough ``savings'' to bring the budget deal back under control and keep 
our hands out of the Social Security cookie jar. And since no one was 
willing to volunteer cuts in any of their special interest programs, 
the negotiators took the easy way out. Rather than setting budget 
priorities, like any American family must do to make ends meet, the 
negotiators resorted to an across-the-board cut of about $2 billion.

  At first glance, one would think that the President, who so 
stridently objected to this indiscriminate cut when he vetoed an 
earlier bill, would have objected to its inclusion in this deal. But it 
seems that the negotiators decided to give the President a whole lot of 
flexibility in choosing the programs that will be cut. For example:
  If the President doesn't want to cut the White House travel budget by 
four-tenths of a percent, he can instead cut funding for the National 
Security Council staff.
  If he doesn't want to cut the staff budget of the Attorney General, 
he can instead cut the funding for the Waco investigation or take a 
million dollars out of programs to prevent violence against women.
  If he doesn't want to cut the administrative accounts of the 
Secretary of Education, he can cut Head Start by another couple million 
dollars.
  If he doesn't want to cut the drug czar's office expenses account, he 
can cut $200,000 or more of the funding for the anti-heroin strategy.
  If the President doesn't want to cut four-tenths of a percent of the 
funding for any one program, he can instead cut up to 15 percent of any 
line item approved by the Congress in any appropriations bill this year 
to get the savings.
  Even though I clearly don't think Congress has done a very good job 
of allocating resources among our nation's priorities, why in the world 
would the Congress cede to the President the ability to decide where to 
take almost $2 billion from programs that have been approved by 
Congress through the appropriations process? Frankly, I recommend that 
the President take that money out of the $13 billion in pork that the 
Congress added to the budget.
  Finally, Mr. President, let me take a moment to talk about the policy 
``riders'' that have found their way into the appropriations process 
this year. As my colleagues know, the Senate has a rule--Rule 16--that 
is supposed to prevent the inclusion of legislative or authorizing 
provisions in spending bills. In fact, the Senate voted earlier this 
year to reinstate that rule. Unfortunately, when a process moves behind 
closed doors, these ``riders'' seem to proliferate.
  There were over 65 legislative riders on the appropriations bills 
that passed the Senate earlier this year, but it seems that every time 
I turn around, I hear about another issue that will be rolled into this 
non-amendable budget package.
  Perhaps that is a result of the fact that these end-of-the-year 
budget deals are usually negotiated by Members of the Appropriations 
Committee, rather than the authorizers. Or it may be driven by the need 
to garner support for the deal from Members who may have a special 
interest in an issue. Whatever the reason, the inclusion of legislative 
matters thwarts the very process that is needed to ensure that our laws 
address the concerns and interests of all Americans, not just a few who 
seek special protection or advantage.
  Some of these riders are not necessarily objectionable to me, but the 
circumvention of the authorization process that took place makes me 
unable to benefit from the advice and recommendations of the committees 
of jurisdiction and their members. I should note, however, that many of 
the reported efforts to add riders to the bill were unsuccessful, for 
which I applaud the negotiators. However, most of the 32 new riders in 
this bill are highly objectionable because of their content as well as 
the process that led to their inclusion in this budget deal.
  For example, one of the last-minute riders in this legislation would 
grant a new lease on life to the milk cartel known as the Northeast 
Dairy Compact, which milks consumers in New England by providing an 
above-market price to the region's dairy farmers. The compact is set to 
expire under a bill this Congress passed in 1996, but the pending 
legislation would reverse this ``Freedom to Farm'' reform. The 
legislation before us would also overturn milk pricing reforms mandated 
by Congress in 1996, supported by our Department of Agriculture, and 
ratified by the nation's dairy farmers in a referendum last summer. 
These reforms were developed by USDA over a three-year period and 
reflect a consensus-based approach worked out with America's dairy 
farmers and producers. Consumer groups estimate that blocking milk 
pricing reform in favor of the current system, as this legislation 
does, will cost consumers across America between $185 million and $1 
billion a year--a sharp blow to low-income individuals, who spend more 
on dairy products as a portion of household income. I cannot in good 
conscience support the repeal of market-oriented reforms passed by a 
Republican Congress in 1996 to benefit American consumers. I fear that, 
yet again, a narrow core of special interests has trumped the people's 
interest in consumer-oriented milk pricing and marketing reforms.
  Another last-minute rider will carve out liability exemptions for 
certain recycling businesses under the Superfund law. Although these 
same provisions are under consideration in a separate bill as well as 
part of a broader Superfund reform effort, this rider affords special 
treatment to a small group of affected industries with a last-minute 
add-on that is another of a targeted special interest deal. Superfund 
reform is important to our nation, yet such piece-meal measures can 
thwart the intentions and progress of those who have made good-faith 
efforts to work through a legislative process.
  Regarding the inclusion in this deal of the restoration of certain 
Medicare benefits, in 1997, Congress made some difficult, but necessary 
changes in the financial structure of the Medicare system as a part of 
the Balanced Budget Act. These changes were needed to strengthen the 
system and delay its impending bankruptcy from 2001 until 2015. These 
reforms allowed us to preserve and protect the Medicare program while 
increasing choice and expanding benefits for beneficiaries.
  However, at the end of last year, many of us began hearing from 
health care providers and seniors about the unintended negative 
consequences which certain provisions may be having on current 
beneficiaries and providers in the Medicare system. There has been 
increasing concern that certain reimbursement reductions and caps 
contained in the Balanced Budget Act could result in access problems 
for our nation's seniors if they were not adjusted this year. 
Personally, I have grown increasingly concerned about this problem, 
particularly about the negative impact on health care delivery which it 
may pose for our nation's most frail or rural elderly.
  While I support the overall intentions of these provisions, I am 
concerned about provisions which have been slipped in to benefit only a 
select area or specific companies, rather than addressing the national 
problem of access to safe, quality and affordable health care for 
Medicare recipients. For example, hospitals in Iredell County, North 
Carolina; Orange County, New York; Lake County, Indiana; Lee County, 
Illinois; Hamilton-Middletown, Ohio; Brazoria County, Texas; and 
Chittenden County, Vermont are given special consideration for 
reimbursement under the Medicare program. Wesley Medical Center in 
Mississippi as well as Lehigh Valley Hospital are given special 
reimbursement consideration under this bill. Meanwhile, the District of 
Columbia, Minnesota, Wyoming and New Mexico are provided increases for 
their hospitals. Sadly, Congress has once again taken a well 
intentioned piece of legislation and inserted provisions directly 
benefitting only a select few at the expense of all taxpayers.
  Finally, Mr. President, nothing would please me more than being able 
to endorse all the satellite television provisions included in this 
appropriations bill. Some of them are good news for satellite TV 
consumers, who would

[[Page S15039]]

gain the ability to receive local TV signals as part of their satellite 
TV service package, have discontinued distant network TV station signal 
service restored, and be relieved of unfair limitations on their 
ability to subscribe to distant network signals when their local 
network stations are unwatchable off-air. Cable TV subscribers would 
also be indirect beneficiaries, because anything that makes satellite 
TV a more attractive alternative to cable TV increases the cable 
operators' incentive to keep monthly rates in check. Considering the 
fact that cable TV rates have increased more than 20 percent since the 
passage of the 1996 Telecom Act, cable subscribers more than deserve 
this kind of break.
  Despite all this, and despite the fact that I have worked for over a 
year and a half to bring procompetitive relief to satellite TV and 
cable TV subscribers, I find myself having to speak out against some of 
the other satellite TV provisions that also appear in this bill.
  Why? Because these other provisions substantially undercut the bill's 
promised consumer benefits. Why, then, were they included? To protect 
special interests--in this case, the TV broadcasters, the TV program 
producers, and the professional sports leagues.
  The primary special interest benefitted by these new provisions is 
the TV broadcasters. Under the law they're considered to be ``public 
trustees,'' and as such they have enjoyed considerable protection 
against competition, thanks to the Congress (which fears the power of 
the local network stations) and to the FCC (which fears the Congress).
  Nevertheless, neither Congress nor the FCC can hold back technology, 
and local broadcasters have increasingly found themselves subjected to 
competition from new multichannel video technologies--first cable TV, 
and now, satellite TV. So the last thing the broadcast TV industry is 
receptive to is the prospect that satellite TV might be able to 
increase its competitive power and thereby lure more of the local 
broadcast audience--and revenue base--away.
  That was one of the reasons why local broadcasters finally sued 
satellite TV companies that were offering distant network TV stations 
to subscribers who technically weren't entitled to receive them--even 
though many of these subscribers had, in fact, been receiving them for 
years without causing any apparent harm to local stations. The lawsuit 
was successful, and as a result many existing satellite TV subscribers 
found their distant network stations suddenly dropped, even when they 
couldn't get satisfactory off-air service from their local stations.
  Not surprisingly, this led to widespread consumer protest. The House 
and the Senate Commerce Committees passed legislation that, taken 
together, would have solved satellite TV consumers' problems without 
inflicting material harm on broadcasters. But the legislation before us 
today contains a number of new provisions that will hurt satellite TV 
consumers and serve no purpose other than protecting the congruent 
interests of the well-heeled TV broadcasters, program producers, and 
professional sports leagues. These new provisions will adversely impact 
the very competition Congress claims it's trying to enhance, and the 
very satellite TV consumers Congress claims it's trying to help.
  The first of these objectionable new provisions directly affects the 
ability of satellite TV companies to offer their subscribers local TV 
stations. Specifically, it governs the process whereby satellite TV 
companies negotiate with the TV networks for the rights to carry their 
local affiliates.
  This issue has always been one of considerable concern because the TV 
networks have the stronger bargaining position, and the incentives, to 
extract unfair prices and conditions from satellite TV companies in 
return for giving them the right to carry local affiliates. Satellite 
TV companies' inability to offer local network stations has been cited 
repeatedly as the principal competitive disadvantage satellite TV 
companies face. The TV networks, therefore, begin with a strong 
bargaining advantage. Added to this is the fact that the networks also 
hold substantial cable TV programming interests, which increases the 
possibility that they could seek to extract further competition-
dampening conditions that would serve the interests of their cable-
channel partners. And, of course, the fact that the networks' local 
affiliates have been in litigation with the satellite TV industry adds 
to the concerns about the networks' incentives to withhold consent to 
carry their local affiliates unless, and until, the satellite TV 
carriers agree to whatever onerous and unfair terms and prices the 
networks might choose to dictate.
  Now let's see how this legislation deals with this critical issue. 
Not only does this legislation omit fair-dealing requirements that had 
been included in the House bill; it adds a new provision, dictated by 
the broadcast industry, that makes a mockery of any notion of fair 
dealing.

  This new provision gives satellite TV companies a six-month ``shot-
clock'' to negotiate and obtain a signed retransmission consent 
agreement from a TV network for carriage of its local affiliate. During 
this time the satellite TV company could begin offering the station to 
its subscribers.
  But there's a catch if, at the end of six months, the satellite TV 
company doesn't get the consent. First of all, the broadcaster, and 
only the broadcaster, is allowed to file a complaint and request a 
cease-and-desist order from the FCC. Moreover, the legislation doesn't 
simply deprive an aggrieved satellite TV company of the ability to file 
a complaint against an unreasonably recalcitrant broadcaster; it goes 
further, and specifically denies the satellite TV company any right to 
claim that the broadcaster didn't negotiate in good faith. These 
patently unfair provisions are complemented by penalties so stringent 
that no satellite TV company in its right mind would knowingly risk 
them.
  Let's examine exactly what this is will mean in real terms. The big 
benefit that satellite TV consumers are supposed to get from this 
legislation is local signals, and their ability to get local signals 
depends on their satellite TV company's ability to close a deal with 
the networks, which have strong bargaining power and palpable 
disincentives to deal dispassionately. So what does this new provision 
do? It deletes the substantive provision that would have provided a 
statutory guarantee of fair dealing, adds a complaint process front-
loaded to benefit the party that has the stronger bargaining position 
and the incentive to deal unfairly, deprives the party that's in the 
weaker bargaining position from raising unfair treatment as a defense, 
and imposes huge penalties on the party with the weaker bargaining 
position if it fails to enter into an agreement before the six-month 
deadline expires.
  In practical terms, this presents any underdog satellite TV companies 
that don't already have retransmission consent agreements with a set of 
Hobson's Choices when it comes to offering local stations. They can, of 
course, simply not begin carrying local stations unless and until they 
have the required retransmission consents. That's the safest thing to 
do. But if they don't start carrying local signals right away, they 
certainly won't be offering their customers the ``local stations by 
Christmas'' promised by those who back this legislation. In addition, 
they'll not only be perpetuating the competitive disadvantage they 
already face when it comes to competing with cable TV; they'll be 
incurring a completely new competitive disadvantage when it comes to 
competing with other satellite TV companies that already have 
agreements. If, on the other hand, a satellite TV company begins 
offering local signals before obtaining the necessary agreements, it 
entails the risk that if the six month negotiation period runs out 
without mutually-acceptable terms having been reached, the satellite TV 
company will have to either drop the local signals or agree to whatever 
terms the network wants.
  Pretty clearly, the effect of this new provision is pro-broadcaster, 
not pro-consumer or pro-competitive. But it's not the only new 
provision that protects special interests at the expense of the 
public's interest. This legislation also protects local network TV 
stations from any action by the FCC to change an outdated 50-year old 
law whose effect is to prevent many satellite TV subscribers from 
receiving additional distant network stations.
  The legislation's new program blackout provisions are another 
Congressional valentine to special interests.

[[Page S15040]]

 These provisions could result in blackouts of scheduled network 
programming, non-network programming, and especially sports 
programming, on the distant stations satellite TV consumers get. This 
will make the broadcasters and TV program producers happy, at the 
expense of making millions of satellite TV consumers unhappy when 
uninterrupted reception of distant station programming becomes a thing 
of the past. The sports programming that so many satellite TV consumers 
enjoy is at the greatest risk. In a special favor to the NFL and the 
other professional sports leagues, the legislation will require 
satellite TV carriers to black out sports programming on distant 
network stations unless the FCC finds it's ``economically prohibitive'' 
for the satellite TV company to do so--a standard that virtually 
guarantees blackouts. And when these blackouts are imposed, no existing 
satellite TV subscriber--not even those who have their distant network 
signal service restored, or the big backyard dish owners who were the 
very first satellite TV subscribers--would be exempt, no matter how 
long they have received multiple distant stations without blackouts and 
without inflicting any detectable harm on any of the special interests 
at whose behest these new provisions were added.
  Rather than prolonging this discussion further, let me sum up. Before 
you now is the latest example of how special interests can, and do, 
make Congress shape legislation to suit what they want, rather than 
what average Americans need and deserve.. At some point, the American 
people will get fed up, and the ability of special interests to 
exercise unwarranted influence like this will be constrained. 
Unfortunately, that's not going to happen today, and therefore I will 
close--but not without some promises that, I assure you, I intend to 
keep.
  I will continue to do everything I can to make sure that satellite TV 
consumers are helped, and multichannel competition improves, after this 
legislation is enacted. I will convene the Commerce Committee early 
next year to examine how competition and consumers are being affected 
by this legislation. I will introduce and I will move new legislation 
to correct any problems we see.
  I will also make sure that the FCC does all it can to help Congress 
serve the interests of satellite TV consumers and multichannel video 
competition. To begin this process I will send a letter tomorrow to FCC 
Chairman William Kennard, requesting that the Commission establish, as 
quickly as possible, the minimum requirements for bargaining in ``good 
faith'' for retransmission consent agreements, and submit 
recommendations to Congress, as quickly as possible, on further 
legislation that will redefine what constitutes a ``viewable'' local TV 
signal. This will remove the problem that keeps satellite TV 
subscribers from getting as many distant TV stations from their 
satellite TV companies as they otherwise could.
  All these measures will enable us to cure the problems these 
particular special-interest provisions will cause. In the meantime, 
it's helpful to recall that in the final analysis they won't affect our 
everyday lives as profoundly as other special interests do when it 
comes to other legislation. The provisions before us today won't 
determine how much we must pay in taxes, how we are permitted to 
educate our children, how we obtain health care, or how our seniors 
will be protected. But in spite of that, they will serve to remind us--
when we watch satellite TV or open our monthly cable TV bills--that, 
when it comes to legislation pending before Congress, no corporate 
issue is too small, and no consumer issue is too big, to avoid the 
pervasive grasp of entrenched special interests.
  Mr. President, I cannot support this budget deal.
  I wonder, Mr. President, when will we begin to listen to the American 
people? When will we take heed of the absolute cynicism about the ways 
of Washington? When will we reform the way we do business so that we 
might reclaim the faith and confidence of the people we are sworn to 
serve?
  Sadly, we seem never to learn. The last-minute, end-of-year budget 
agreement has become a yearly ritual and a tired cliche.
  Mr. President, we have all year to complete our business in a 
responsible manner like grownups. But every day, at great expense to 
the taxpayers, we whirl about in our self-importance, never to be 
diverted from playing at our pathetic partisan political games.
  After all the hearings, paper-shuffling, and speech-making, the 
taxpayers' hard-earned money is spent according to the whims of a 
massive, hastily compiled budget deal that contains lots of goodies for 
Members of Congress and special interests, but very little for the 
American people--an annual monument to our arrogance that is chock full 
of pork-barrel spending, special-interest riders, and clever budget 
gimmicks, but not one morsel of family tax relief.
  Mr. President, in just a few short weeks, we will usher in a new 
century and a new millennium. This is a time of renewal and reform. 
Just as individual Americans take stock of themselves and resolve to do 
and be better, perhaps we elected officials might resolve to set a 
better example in the way we conduct the people's business. Perhaps in 
the year 2000, we might address ourselves not to partisan gridlock and 
political games, but to restoring the people's faith in their elected 
leaders. Perhaps next year we can spare the American people the grim 
faces and high drama of the last-minute budget summit, and simply do 
our work responsibly, in the open, and on time.
  Maybe then we can restore the confidence in our public institutions 
that is so badly flagging, but is so essential to making the new 
century worthy of the highest dreams and aspirations of the people we 
are privileged to serve.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will vote for this final appropriations 
package, because I believe that, on balance, it is a good product. 
However, the situation we are in today is hauntingly familiar to that 
of a year ago, and my disappointment in the appropriations process 
continues. Last minute budgeting makes sound decisions increasingly 
difficult. We should reform the appropriations process to safeguard the 
interests of taxpayers and achieve a more balanced use of our time and 
resources.
  We all know that the appropriations process has grown to an 
inordinate length. We spend months holding hearings and negotiations, 
crafting sound public policy, only to scrap it in a hasty year-end 
scramble when we cobble together a bill negotiated by the White House 
budget chiefs and a few members of Congress. A 1996 CRS study revealed 
that budget matters eat up 73% of the Senate's time. I can't imagine we 
spent much less time on budget matters this year.
  As I have been recommending since 1993, along with our distinguished 
Budget Committee Chairman and many other Senators, Congress should 
adopt a two-year budget cycle, and do the budgeting in non-election 
years. This would double the time available for non-budget policy 
issues and for carrying out often neglected oversight duties. Our goal 
must be to engage in lawmaking in the deliberative manner the Founders 
intended.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, once again the Senate is considering a 
massive appropriations bill in the final hours of a session of 
Congress. This one spends more than $385 billion, contains legislation 
which rightly belongs in five separate appropriations bills, and other 
important legislation which doesn't belong in an appropriations bill at 
all. This is a process which reflects poorly on the Congress both 
because it represents a failure to get the nation's work done on time, 
and because the final rush precludes the kind of careful consideration 
and debate which wise decisionmaking demands. The combination of its 
enormous size and the swiftness with which it was thrown together makes 
certain that Senators will only after the fact learn full details about 
many provisions which have been added.
  Democrats have won critical victories in this bill providing funds 
for new teachers to reduce class size in our schools, a first 
installment toward 50,000 new police officers by 2005, the necessary 
funding to implement the Wye River peace agreement and more than $514 
million for the Lands Legacy Initiative to preserve and safeguard our 
most precious public lands, as well as funds for after-school programs 
to benefit 675,000 students. Other needed legislation is included to 
reverse some

[[Page S15041]]

of the unintended consequences of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act on 
hospitals, nursing homes and other health care facilities and 
legislation to benefit consumers by increasing competition between 
cable and satellite companies and permitting satellite companies to 
provide local network signals in local markets. However, like last 
year, even as I acknowledge some important budget victories, I do not 
support this process and, on balance, cannot vote for this bill.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as some of my colleagues know, I have 
been posted, here on the Senate floor, day after day this week because 
of my concerns about the dairy provisions that are included in the 
budget package, and I know other Senators support those provisions 
because of the States they represent. For now, I just want to comment 
more broadly on the budget package and how we got here.
  Mr. President, we have before us a measure that we are told will 
direct something like $400 billion in spending in such areas as the 
Justice Department including the FBI, Education including funding for 
local school districts, increased security for our foreign embassies, 
the Interior Department including our national parks system, Health and 
Human Services including critical funding for aging programs like the 
congregate and home delivered meals programs, and much more.
  But, Mr. President, you would not know that by reading this bill. 
That roughly $400 billion in spending is distributed in a few pages of 
text. With the exception of District of Columbia funding, it's all on 
one page--the last page.
  I have not been here as long as some of my colleagues, but I cannot 
recall ever seeing anything like this. Last year's omnibus 
appropriations bill was bad enough. It, too, lumped several 
appropriations bills together into one giant omnibus appropriations 
measure. It, too, was loaded with special interest measures that were 
slipped in, never having been debated, and unlikely to pass on their 
own. But at least, Mr. President, the spending done in that bill was 
explicitly a part of the document formally placed before the Senate. If 
you took the time to read the several thousand page appropriations 
bill, you would have found those items last year.
  Mr. President, the bill before us is another matter entirely. It 
legislates by reference. Other than the DC Appropriations bill, there 
are no details provided in this document that indicate how those 
hundreds of billions of dollars are to be spent, only references to 
other bills.
  Mr. President, when this bill goes to the President for his approval, 
what will he be signing into law? Essentially, he will be signing into 
law little more than a glorified table of contents.
  Mr. President, this is a horrible precedent. This kind of gimmick may 
have been used before, but never on anything so momentous as an omnibus 
appropriations bill. And it is perhaps fitting that this piece of 
legislation should be structured the way it is.
  This bill is the ``poster child'' of the 106th Congress. Unable to 
meet the budget deadline, we are once again presented with an omnibus 
appropriations bill, laden with the kind of special interest provisions 
that undermine our budget as well as the confidence of the public. And 
unwilling to bring any but a handful of authorizing bills to the floor 
for open debate, the leadership has now crammed this perverse bill full 
of legislation that has no business in an appropriations measure.
  Mr. President, earlier this year this body voted to restore some 
order to the appropriations process by re-establishing the point of 
order against legislating on appropriations. This bill renders that 
exercise utterly meaningless. Worse, it means that while the Senate is 
precluded from adding authorizing language after thorough debate on the 
floor, a few people in a backroom are free to add anything they wish, 
with no debate and out of public view.

  Mr. President, the 106th Congress is not yet half over a but it has 
already earned itself a sorry reputation. This is the Congress of 
Convenience. The 106th Congress found it inconvenient to finish the 
simple job of passing appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal 
year, so it cuts a few backroom deals and lumps five appropriations 
bills together. The 106th Congress found it inconvenient to debate 
authorizing bills fully and openly, so it bundled several together and 
shoved them into this omnibus appropriations bill. And now, the 106th 
Congress finds it inconvenient to provide even the details of this $400 
billion compost heap, so it engages in some drafting gymnastics, and 
gives the public little more than a glorified table of contents.
  Mr. President, I realize there are some strong feelings about the 
provisions of this bill. I know that some of my colleagues support some 
of the provisions in this measure. Chances are there are provisions in 
this measure that I, too, would support, but how would I know? But I 
hope that a few weeks from now, after this thing is enacted, my 
colleagues will consider just what has been wrought this week and this 
past year. The normal procedures of the Senate and the other body have 
been run over by a steamroller in the name of political expediency and 
convenience, and that cannot be good, even for those who may have 
gained a temporary victory.
  In the play A Man for All Seasons, there is an exchange between Sir 
Thomas More and his son-in-law, Roper. More asks Roper--``What would 
you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?'' 
Roger responds--``I'd cut down every law in England to do that!'' More 
then replies--``Oh? And when the last law was down, and the devil 
turned round on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being 
flat? * * * This country's planted thick with laws from coast to 
coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down--and you're just 
the man to do it--d'you really think you could just stand upright in 
the winds that would blow then?''
  Mr. President, the 106th Congress has done more than its share of 
flattening our rules and procedures. Those of us in the minority on the 
issue before us today perhaps feel it most keenly, but let me suggest 
that many more may come to regret the precedents set by the Congress of 
Convenience.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, I want to express 
my appreciation for all of the hard work that Senators Stevens and 
Byrd, Specter and Harkin have put into the Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education Appropriations bill in the face of enormous 
budgetary challenges. I also appreciate all they have done to 
accomodate my priorities during this process.
  The 20th Century is coming to a close during a time of unprecedented 
economic growth and budget surpluses. However, as we celebrate our 
nation's prosperity, we must make sure we don't leave any of our most 
vulnerable citizens behind. In my opinion, that's what this bill, which 
funds vital health and education programs in the year 2000, should be 
about: making a strong commitment to our aging parents and 
grandparents--who made this country what it is today, as well as to our 
children--who will determine its future.
  I am pleased that this bill takes several important steps in that 
direction. First, this bill continues to make early childhood education 
and child care a top priority. I am very pleased that the bill includes 
a $608 million increase to the Head Start program. This program gives 
young children from lower-income families a real chance to succeed by 
providing educational, health, and other child care services.
  Second, I am glad to see that this bill includes a nearly $30 million 
increase for States to inspect nursing homes and ensure they are safe. 
As a member of the Senate Aging Committee, I have had the unfortunate 
opportunity to hear firsthand about cases of abuse and neglect in many 
of our nation's nursing homes. Our seniors and disabled deserve the 
best possible care, and this funding will help make sure they get it. 
In addition, the bill includes a $1 million increase for the Long-term 
Care Ombudsman program. Ombudsmen serve as advocates for long-term care 
residents and help them to resolve complaints of neglect and abuse. 
They are a critical component of ensuring the safety of our seniors in 
nursing homes and other long-term care settings.
  I am also extremely pleased that the bill includes another $100 
million increase for Community Health Centers. The number of uninsured 
in our country continues to grow. Health centers

[[Page S15042]]

provide treatment to large numbers of uninsured and should be commended 
for the incredible work they do. This increase will help them meet the 
increased demand for care, and ensure that patients get the quality 
health care services they need.
  This bill also fully funds the LIHEAP program. This program is vital 
to low-income families in Wisconsin who need assistance with heating 
costs during the cold winter months. I am pleased that this bill 
continues to make this program a top priority.
  I am also pleased that in addition to the $2 billion increase for the 
National Institutes of Health, report language was included in the bill 
that targets many of the diseases that are devastating families across 
our nation. The bill includes report language I requested to increase 
research into epilepsy, particularly intractable epilepsy, which 
primarily starts in childhood and affects nearly 75,000 of the 3 
million individuals with epilepsy.
  In addition, at my urging, the bill also includes $90 million for the 
National Institute of Nursing Research within NIH. Nursing research is 
different from biomedical research but just as necessary. This research 
focuses on reducing the burden and suffering of illness, improving the 
quality of life by preventing and delaying the onset of disease, and by 
looking for better ways to promote health and prevent disease.
  I am pleased that the bill also includes report language that 
strongly urges more research into Alzheimer's Disease. This devastating 
disease affects nearly 4 million people in the United States, including 
100,000 in Wisconsin. The total annual cost of Alzheimer care is over 
$100 billion. Searching for new treatments--and ultimately a cure--must 
be one of our top priorities in biomedical research, to alleviate both 
the suffering and the costs associated with this awful disease.
  I also want to thank Senators Specter and Harkin for their 
willingness to work with me on some of my other priorities. At my 
request, language was included in the Senate report to start a 
demonstration program within HRSA to increase the number of mental 
health professionals in underserved areas--particularly those suffering 
from recent farm crises. I am hopeful that HRSA will allocate at least 
$1 million toward this initiative.

  Funds have also been provided to CDC to expand their efforts to 
prevent birth defects through the promotion of folic acid among women 
of childbearing age. I have sponsored, along with Senators Abraham and 
Bond, a bill that would authorize $20 million to CDC for this purpose, 
and I am pleased that this appropriations bill gets this initiative 
underway. In addition, I am pleased that the Ryan White Comprehensive 
Care program received an increase of $86 million to expand services for 
people living with HIV and AIDS.
  I'd now like to talk a bit about funding for education. While I am 
concerned about the use of advance funding for many of our education 
programs, I am pleased that this bill provides necessary increases for 
education. Title I--which provides assistance to disadvantaged youth, 
received a $209 million increase, although we must do much better than 
that in the future in order to serve all Title I-eligible children. I 
am also pleased that Special Education received a large increase in 
funding, although we still have a great deal of work to do to live up 
to our commitment to fund 40% of the costs of the program. We still 
need to do more in both these areas, but this is a good start.
  In addition, I strongly support the $253 million increase for 21st 
Century Community Learning Centers, for a total of $453 million for FY 
2000. I have visited several of these afterschool programs in my State 
and I have seen firsthand how successful and critically important they 
are. These programs give kids a safe place to go after school, keep 
them off the streets, and out of trouble. It is supported on a 
bipartisan basis, by parents, teachers, and police chiefs. Last year, 
thousands of applications were submitted for only 184 grants. However, 
I believe it deserves an even stronger investment than this bill 
provides, which is why I voted for an amendment during consideration of 
the Senate version to provide $600 million for this worthy program. 
Although that amendment failed, I will continue to fight for more 
funding for after-school programs next year.
  This bill also makes greater strides to give students the tools they 
need to go to college. First, the bill increases the maximum Pell Grant 
award to $3,300, and I am hopeful we can further increase this amount 
next year. It also increases the Federal Work-Study program by $64 
million. TRIO programs also received a $45 million increase, and I am 
pleased that more students will be able to take advantage of TRIO 
programs that give lower-income students a better chance to go to 
college. I also strongly support the $80 million increase for the GEAR-
UP program. This program gives many middle school students their first 
real opportunity to strive toward going to college. I am hopeful that 
we will further increase funding for this program in future years.
  Finally, I am pleased that the conference report maintains and 
increases our commitment to hiring 100,000 teachers and reducing class 
sizes in the early grades. Class size reduction efforts have produced 
tremendous results in Wisconsin and across the nation. It is essential 
that we continue to provide the resources States and school districts 
need to put a qualified teacher in every classroom. Our students 
deserve nothing less.
  I am pleased that these important education programs have received 
increases. However, I also have several significant concerns about the 
education section of the bill.
  First, I am deeply concerned that the bill level funds the Child Care 
& Development Block Grant. The Senate bill included an amendment, which 
I supported, to increase funding for the CCDBG from $1.2 billion to $2 
billion. This amendment had strong bipartisan support because there is 
now widespread recognition that child care is critical to the success 
of working families. Unfortunately, this amendment was dropped during 
negotiations of the conference report. This is a serious mistake, and 
one that will have serious repercussions for working families. Programs 
funded by the CCDBG ensure that parents have a safe, educational place 
to send their children during the workday. Businesses experience less 
absenteeism and greater productivity when their employees know their 
children are well taken care of. When families who need quality, 
affordable child care are able to find it, everybody wins. It's that 
simple. I strongly believe that we must renew our commitment to 
expanding access to child care, and I will continue to make child care 
funding a top priority and fight hard for future increases.
  Second, and even more importantly, I have serious concerns about the 
bill's substantial use of advance funding for education. I am not 
convinced that this practice is completely benign, and I believe we 
must watch carefully how the delayed release of education funds impacts 
school budgets.

  However, I have an even deeper concern about the use of advance 
funding. The hard truth is this: we would not be forced to use advance 
funding, nor any budget gimmicks at all, if this bill received the 
priority it deserved. This bill, which funds our most basic needs--
health care and education--was left for dead last. It was raided 
repeatedly to fund other programs, leaving it at one point with a more 
than $15 billion shortfall. We would not be in the budgetary box we 
find ourselves in today if this bill had been the top priority it 
should be. I hope that in the future my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle will have the will to pass this bill early and send a strong 
message that education and health care are our top priorities, not our 
last.
  Besides education, there are several other areas of the bill that I 
believe must be improved in future budgets. First, while I am pleased 
that the bill sets aside $19.1 million in the Child Care & Development 
Block Grant for Resource and Referral programs, I am concerned this 
just isn't enough. R&R programs serve as a resource to help parents 
locate quality, affordable child care in their communities. When 
parents need child care, they call R&R agencies, who have the tools to 
direct parents to appropriate child care providers in their area that 
meet each family's unique needs. With growing numbers of parents 
entering the workforce, the need for R&R is greater than ever. I would 
like to continue to work with Senators Specter and Harkin, as

[[Page S15043]]

well as all of my colleagues, on increasing this set-aside to $50 
million to meet the increasing demand for referral services.
  I am also very concerned about the cut in the Social Services Block 
Grant. The State of Wisconsin and our counties rely on SSBG to fund a 
variety of social service programs. These include supportive home care 
and community living services for the elderly and disabled, drug and 
alcohol abuse treatment, temporary shelter for homeless families, and 
child abuse prevention and intervention services. States and counties 
rely on these funds, and it is wrong to renege on our commitment to 
SSBG funding.
  I am also very concerned about programs for senior citizens under the 
Older Americans Act. I am pleased to see that the bill includes a $35 
million increase for home-delivered meals to seniors. However, we must 
also find a way to make a stronger investment in the Supportive 
Services and Senior Centers program. This program provides funds to 
Area Agencies on Aging, which in turn provide a wide range of 
assistance to frail elderly. In addition, we must also provide 
assistance to the growing number of Americans who are taking care of 
elderly and disabled relatives. I am a cosponsor of the Family 
Caregiver Support Act, which provides $125 million in assistance and 
respite for caregivers. Unfortunately, this bill does not fund this 
necessary program, but I hope we can enact it into law quickly next 
year.
  The National Senior Service Corps is a program we should all be proud 
of and support increased funding. These programs utilize the skills and 
experience of older Americans in our communities. Foster Grandparents, 
Senior Companions, and RSVP give seniors a chance to work with 
children, families and other seniors, and we are all the richer for 
their contributions. I am pleased that the bill includes increases for 
these programs, and I believe we must provide more in the future lest 
we waste this priceless resource we have in our seniors.
  In addition to the Labor, HHS component, this Omnibus Appropriations 
bill includes some desperately needed relief for our nation's health 
care providers. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included many 
provisions that reduced Medicare payments further than Congress 
intended. Providers have been forced to reduce benefits or worse--many 
providers in my State and across the nation have closed altogether. I 
have strongly supported efforts to alleviate those cuts and have worked 
with many of my colleagues over the past year to fight for a solution. 
I am pleased that the Conference Report includes provisions to assist 
hospitals, home health agencies, skilled nursing facilities and other 
providers. In the end, Medicare beneficiaries are the ones who truly 
benefit, and this bill will help ensure that seniors in Wisconsin and 
throughout the nation continue to receive the health care services they 
need and deserve.
  Overall, I believe this is a good bill, and I commend the Chairmen 
and Ranking Members of the Appropriations Committee and the Labor, HHS 
Subcommittee, as well as the Finance Committee, for their hard work. 
Unfortunately, because unrelated dairy provisions that I strongly 
oppose were included in this conference report, I reluctantly must vote 
against it. However, I want to make clear that I strongly support the 
vast majority of the increases in this bill--increases that will go a 
long way toward ensuring that our children and our elderly receive the 
important services they need. I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking 
Member of the Subcommittee for doing such a great job this year under 
such difficult budgetary circumstances, and for their willingness to 
work with me on items of concern to me and my State. I look forward to 
working with them again next year on this vitally important bill.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I intend to support the consolidated 
appropriations package. This large legislative package--the result of 
hard work by many on both sides of the aisle--provides funding for a 
number of programs which are important and affect people in a direct 
way. This bill includes funding for programs under the D.C. 
Appropriations bill, the Interior Appropriations bill, the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Bill, the Commerce-Justice-State 
Appropriations bill, and the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education 
Appropriations bill.
  In addition, incorporated in the legislation are other important 
measures, including the Satellite Competition and Consumer Protection 
Act, provisions important for dairy farmers in my State, the State 
Department Authorization bill, and our Medicare refinement plan. As 
with any product this large and with as many compromises which were 
necessary to move the process forward, there will be provisions with 
which one will disagree.
  While this is certainly a substantial legislative undertaking, I 
would point out that nearly all of the matters contained in this 
package have previously been debated in full by the Senate and passed 
by wide margins.
  Mr. President, I would like to highlight some provisions contained in 
this legislation for which I have advocated. This legislation will 
continue the Trade Adjustment Assistance program.
  Earlier this month, my distinguished colleague on the Finance 
Committee, Senator Moynihan, and I, stressed the importance of this 
program for our American workers during the debate on the Africa Trade 
bill. The Africa Trade bill passed by the Senate extended the authority 
for the TAA program which lapsed in June of this year. As time did not 
permit us to resolve our differences with the House on the trade 
package, we needed to insure that the benefits to workers displaced 
from their jobs as a result of trade activity be continued. I am very 
pleased that this provision is included in this package.
  The package also includes the Satellite Copyright, Competition, and 
Consumer Protection Act. My State has over 30,000 households which 
depend on satellite dishes for their television programming and I have 
long advocated a modernization of the laws affecting satellite 
television programming. I am also pleased that an agreement was reached 
to have the Senate consider legislation which will facilitate satellite 
local to local service in small and rural markets, as this will be 
important to bring local programming to my constituents.
  I have joined with my colleague from Delaware, Joe Biden, in 
sponsoring legislation to continue the important programs he has 
championed--the COPS program and the Violence Against Women Act. This 
measure provides funding for these programs. Also contained in the 
package is funding for the State Side program under the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. I had joined with our late colleague, Senator 
Chafee, in sponsoring legislation to provide these funds for the first 
time in several years to promote open space and recreation 
opportunities at the discretion of our State governments.
  The package maintains the commitment we made with the passage of the 
Balanced Budget Act in 1997 to prioritize education. Since the passage 
of the 1997 bill, we have followed through with substantial increases 
in funding for our important education programs and have done so in a 
manner which promotes flexibility.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to discuss the Finance 
Committee's Medicare, Medicaid, & SCHIP Refinement Act of 1999, H.R. 
3426.
  A little more than two years ago Congress passed and the President 
signed into law the historic Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This 
important legislation has been instrumental in making possible the 
budget surpluses we are beginning to see materialize.
  However, not all of the consequences of the Balanced Budget Act have 
been positive, and many of them were unintended. Two years of 
implementation allowed us to identify some areas, particularly related 
to Medicare provider reimbursement, that needed to be revisited.
  The Finance Committee carefully monitored the impact of the Balanced 
Budget Act on various categories of health care providers. In fact, 
this year the Committee held a number of hearings on Medicare and 
Medicaid matters.
  Throughout the course of these hearings, providers presented us with 
compelling testimony about significant fiscal and patient care-related 
problems that have resulted, unintentionally, from decisions the 
Congress made in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

[[Page S15044]]

  Mr. President, let me be clear that we should be proud of the program 
improvements and the corresponding savings achieved through the 
Balanced Budget Act. We had no intention of fundamentally undoing that 
work.
  However, there were problems that needed to be addressed to make sure 
we pay providers appropriately to meet the real health care needs of 
Medicare beneficiaries. At passage, the 1997 BBA reduced Medicare and 
Medicaid spending by nearly $120 billion. This package restores $27 
billion over 10 years to address unintended consequences of the 
original law.
  New provisions in this bill restore some $17 billion in funding over 
10 years. Accordingly, in October, the Committee marked up and 
overwhelmingly passed a package of payment adjustments to fine tune the 
policies enacted through the Balanced Budget Act. This package was 
developed in a bipartisan manner with the close cooperation of Senator 
Moynihan and his staff.
  For the past several days, we have been working to reconcile this 
Finance Committee package with a similar bill passed by the House of 
Representatives last Friday.
  The bill before us today represents an excellent compromise between 
the House and Senate bills, with input from the Administration.
  The payment adjustments included in the House-Senate compromise 
package will benefit Medicare beneficiaries by improving payment to all 
sectors of the health care market place--including hospitals, 
physicians' offices, nursing facilities, community health centers, and 
home health care agencies, among many others. In addition, the package 
includes other technical adjustments to Medicaid and the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program.
  The provisions included in the package are consistent with a few 
basic goals I have tried to work toward from the beginning of this 
process. First, I felt that the overriding purpose of this package 
should be to address the most significant problems resulting from BBA 
policies.
  In my view, larger Medicare reform continues to be an important 
objective. However, even the White House ultimately agreed this was 
neither the moment nor the legislative vehicle by which to pursue that 
goal.
  The Senate Finance Committee will continue in its efforts to develop 
a bipartisan consensus on broader Medicare reform when we resume our 
work in January. That will be the time and place to consider lasting 
and far-reaching Medicare reforms.
  Second, we sought to keep payment adjustments focused on areas in 
which we face demonstrated problems resulting from the Balanced Budget 
Act. Furthermore, we tired to make short-term adjustments in payment 
practices without revisiting the underlying policies set forth in the 
BBA.
  Finally, it was particularly important to me not to let this become a 
partisan process. These are not partisan issues and I have tried to 
resist any effort to make them so. I am hopeful that this compromise 
can be supported by all Senators.
  The provisions included in the package reflect the priorities of 
Senators on and off the Finance Committee. In addition, like all of you 
I have consulted extensively with my own constituents in Delaware, as 
well as with national health care and beneficiary organizations. They 
are strongly supportive.
  Mr. President, the provisions included in this conference agreement 
make some significant contributions to protecting the care provided to 
seniors in nursing homes. We provide increased funding for medically 
complex patients and for rehabilitation services in nursing, homes, and 
we help these facilities' transition to the new payment systems 
required under the Balanced Budget Act. The Agreement also includes 
something I consider to be of vital importance to Medicare 
beneficiaries; we put a moratorium on the arbitrary annual dollar cap 
on the amount of rehabilitation therapy services a beneficiary could 
access. In addition, we mitigate the impact of scheduled reductions for 
home health agencies, increase funding and regional payment equity for 
teaching hospitals, and enhance programs for rural health care 
facilities.
  The Conference Agreement also includes important protections for 
hospitals as the new outpatient prospective payment system goes into 
effect next year. I am especially pleased at the steps we have taken to 
stabilize the Medicare+Choice program, so that beneficiaries can count 
on Medicare health plan choices in the future.
  Mr. President, today we have an opportunity to solve the problems 
that have been interfering with the ability of the provider community 
to make sure our constituents receive the high quality health care they 
deserve, without retreating from the important policy reforms enacted 
in the Balanced Budget Act. I ask all of you to join me in supporting 
this important legislation.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today, the Senate is considering a multi-
billion package focused on adjusting certain Medicare provisions in the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
  That historic legislation made changes in payment structures for 
programs and providers within Medicare and Medicaid.
  Many in the Medicare provider community are concerned that these 
changes have negatively affected their ability to provide adequate 
access and quality care to their patients.
  Mr. President, I commend the Administration and my colleagues for 
completing the difficult task of designing a bill that addresses many 
of these concerns.
  I have heard from hospitals, physicians, community health centers and 
a variety of other Medicare providers, all of whom are very concerned 
that the quality of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries may decline 
significantly if cuts to provider payments are not softened.
  There are many provisions in this bill that I would like to see 
enacted. These include a moratorium on the $1500 therapy cap, support 
for the skilled nursing facilities, cancer centers and disproportionate 
share hospitals, and enhancements to Medicaid and the Children's Health 
Insurance Program.
  But while there is some clear evidence that Congress may have erred 
in designing some of the Medicare provisions in the Balanced Budget 
Act, that fact does not relieve us of our fiduciary responsibilities to 
the American public.
  Our commitment to revisiting Medicare provider adjustments must be 
accompanied by a commitment to pay for these actions.
  By refusing to pay for this bill, we are funding changes to a 
balanced budget agreement in a way that steals from future generations.
  This is an irony we cannot afford.
  Mr. President, allow me to explain.
  To date, we have spent all of our anticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 
2000. Any further government spending comes straight from the Social 
Security surplus.
  It is easy to spend money when it is not your own.
  Didn't we prove that during the last thirty years of ``borrow and 
spend'' budgeting--a period in which our national debt rose from $366 
million in 1969 to $5.6 billion today?
  Let's not start down that slope again.
  Mr. President, I clearly remember the day we passed the Balanced 
Budget Act in 1997. We all congratulated each other on a job well done.
  We slapped each other on the back and took full and deserved credit 
for balancing the budget for the first time in a generation.
  Now we are facing up to some of the realities of that great 
achievement.
  Just as we took responsibility for our accomplishments in 1997, we 
must now take responsibility for fixing some of our mistakes.
  If Congress believes that provider relief is necessary, then it must 
exercise fiscal responsibility and pay for it with true offsets--not 
surplus funds.
  Congress has clearly stated that ensuring retirement security for the 
American public is its top priority.
  Democrats and Republicans have made clear that saving Social Security 
and Medicare must be the first items of business on any legislative 
agenda.
  But future generations are depending on our deeds--not our words.
  Mr. President, we must hold true to our commitment to ensure Social 
Security's solvency until 2075 and to strengthen and modernize Medicare 
before we look to the surplus for any other purpose.
  During his State of the Union Address, President Clinton made a 
commitment to bolster Social Security and

[[Page S15045]]

Medicare. Congress has joined him in that commitment.
  A test of our commitment to protecting Social Security surplus is 
being played out on the Senate floor today.
  Since the beginning of this debate I have offered proposals to 
restore payments to providers without stealing from Social Security and 
Medicare.
  When the Finance Committee marked up its bill, I offered an amendment 
that would have fully offset the cost of this package through a series 
of modest, non-Medicare-related revenue increases.
  It was my hope that the Committee would have shown the same 
enthusiasm for fiscal responsibility as it did two years ago.
  However, it thwarted our commitment to save Social Security and 
Medicare by a vote of 14 to 6.
  I also offered an amendment that would have put a down payment on 
true Medicare reform, while saving the Medicare system $4 billion over 
10 years--nearly one third of the overall cost of the bill.
  This focused on five proven and tested proposals, including a 
competitive bidding for part B services provision that was passed 
unanimously by the Finance Committee in 1997.
  By fulfilling our obligation to help the Medicare system provide 
quality care while promoting cost efficiency, this amendment embraced 
the same principles that helped us achieve a balanced budget in 1997.
  But our dedication to these principles now appears to have vanished.
  The audacity of paying for this bill with the Social Security surplus 
is exacerbated by the fact that it includes provisions that actually do 
away with cost saving programs enacted in the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997
  Allow me to direct your attention to two of the less heralded 
provisions in this package.
  First, the postponement of the enactment of the ``inherent 
reasonableness'' provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 until 
final regulations are published. This provision prevents beneficiaries 
from realizing millions of dollars in savings by blocking the 
government's ability to negotiate rates with home oxygen and durable 
medical equipment suppliers.
  By reimbursing providers on a market basis, the competitive bidding 
process will save the system money by setting a true price for medical 
goods and services, while ensuring that beneficiaries continue to 
receive comprehensive coverage.
  By putting off the implementation of this provision, potentially for 
years, we are essentially taking $500 million of potential savings out 
of the pockets of Medicare beneficiaries.
  Second, is the inclusion of the following language in the conference 
report concerning the risk adjuster for Medicare+Choice plans:
  ``The parties to the agreement note that in 1997, when Congress 
required the Secretary to develop a risk adjuster for Medicare+Choice 
plans, it was concerned that those plans that treated the most severely 
ill enrollees were not adequately paid. The Congress envisioned a risk 
adjuster that would be more clinically based than the old method of 
adjusting payments. The Congress did not instruct HCFA to implement the 
provision in a manner that would reduce aggregate Medicare+Choice 
payments. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office did not estimate 
that the provision would reduce aggregate Medicare+Choice payments. 
Consequently, the parties to the agreement urge the Secretary to revise 
the regulations implementing the risk adjuster so as to provide for 
more accurate payments, without reducing overall Medicare+Choice 
payments.''
  Mr. President, the Health Financing Administration (HCFA) currently 
estimates that risk adjustment will decrease plan payments by 
approximately $10 billion over ten years. This estimate is based on the 
additional money that plans are paid relative to fee-for-service 
Medicare after adjusting for health status. Plans that serve a higher 
proportion of sicker beneficiaries would not see a decrease in 
payments. Plans that skim the healthiest patients from the Medicare 
population would see the biggest decrease in payments.
  Since first learning that HCFA was planning to decrease plan payments 
under risk adjustment, lobbyists for the managed care industry have 
been claiming that congressional intent was for risk adjustment to be 
budget neutral, and they have been lobbying this issue on the Hill. 
They tried to get it into the Senate Finance Committee report but were 
unsuccessful. The language was included in the House Ways and Means 
committee report, however. The House-Senate agreement language comes 
straight from the House report.
  It's telling that the statute does not explicitly state that risk 
adjustment should be budget neutral. In addition, it's telling that 
lobbyists for the managed care industry have not publicly stated that 
congressional intent was to make risk adjustment budget neutral.
  In terms of what congressional intent actually was in BBA 97--I think 
the story is not entirely clear. It could be that no one thought much 
about the issue. But regardless of whether you are sympathetic to 
managed care plans or not, it is disingenuous to claim definitively 
that congressional intent was not to reduce plan payments in BBA.
  This is an outrage Mr. President.
  I believe that we should correct mistakes that were made in the BBA 
and pay for those mistakes. Equally, it is my feeling that we should 
seize the opportunity to make fundamental reforms to the Medicare 
program in order to modernize and improve services for Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  In passing this legislation, we are trading fiscal responsibility for 
fiscal recklessness. We are ignoring innovation in favor of the status 
quo.
  Mr. President, I am committed to working to find a solution to the 
difficult problem of bringing Medicare into the 21st Century and 
keeping it solvent.
  It was my hope that we would have the opportunity to vote today on a 
package that represented good public policy and included an offset that 
upheld our commitment to fiscal responsibility.
  I regret that this is not the case.
  But most of all, I regret the overt lack of concern that this body 
has shown for the future generations whose Medicare and Social Security 
benefits hang in the balance.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Conference Report 
before the Senate contains the State Department authorization bill.
  With enactment of this legislation, we will finally--after three 
years of effort--approve critical legislation to authorize the payment 
of nearly $1 billion in back dues to the United Nations. Enactment of 
this legislation will serve, I believe, three important purposes. It 
should finally end the long-festering feud between the U.N. and 
Washington about our unpaid back dues; it should bring much-needed 
reforms to the world body so that it can more effectively perform its 
missions; and it should, I hope, end the debate about the utility of 
the U.N., and restore bipartisan support in Congress for the U.N. 
system.
  The agreement before us will allow us to pay $926 million in arrears 
to the United Nations contingent upon the U.N. achieving specific 
reform conditions, or ``benchmarks,'' to borrow the Chairman's 
expression.
  The first set of these conditions can be readily certified--thereby 
releasing $100 million immediately. The second and third set of 
conditions will be difficult to achieve. But I have great confidence in 
our ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke. And I believe 
that with the money on the table--that is, with the assurance that the 
U.S. payment will be available--the reforms will be easier to obtain 
then they might otherwise be.
  The State Department authorization bill contains several other 
important provisions which I would like to highlight briefly.
  First, the bill authorizes $4.5 billion in funding over the next five 
years for construction of secure embassies overseas. The tragic embassy 
bombings in East Africa in August 1998 underscored the current 
vulnerability of our embassies to terrorist attack. Simply stated, the 
large majority of our embassies around the world do not meet current 
security standards. Thousands of U.S. government employees--both 
Americans and foreign nationals--are at risk, and we must do all that 
we can to protect them. In addition to authorizing funding, this bill 
codifies many important security standards, including the

[[Page S15046]]

requirement of that embassies be set back 100 feet from the street, and 
the requirement that all agencies be co-located in the embassy 
compound.
  All this is important. But what is essential is that we provide the 
actual funding. So far, aside from last fall's emergency appropriations 
bill, funding for embassy security has fallen far short of need. The 
President requested $3 billion in advance appropriations in his budget 
request, which was rejected by the Appropriations Committees. We must 
give our attention to funding this priority matter next year.
  Second, the bill provides for the establishment of a Bureau of 
Verification and Compliance in the Department of State to monitor arms 
control and non-proliferation agreements. In his plan for the 
integration of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency into the State 
Department, the President proposed that the functions of verification 
and compliance be handled by a ``Special Adviser'' to the 
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
  We think the Administration's proposal is ill-advised. Given the way 
the State Department operates--where key policy battles are waged among 
bureaus at the Assistant Secretary level --this ``adviser'' would be a 
weak bureaucratic actor, and the function of assuring compliance with 
arms control treaties and non-proliferation regimes would thereby be 
unacceptably diminished. Therefore, the conference report includes a 
provision which requires that this important duty be handled by an 
Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance.
  Third, the bill reauthorizes Radio Free Asia (RFA) for another ten 
years. RFA, which was established in 1994 pursuant to legislation I 
introduced, broadcasts news and information to the People's Republic of 
China and other non-democratic states in East Asia. I am pleased that 
Congress has given its further stamp of approval to this important 
instrument of American foreign policy.
  It is fitting that this bill is named for two devoted public servants 
who were deeply involved in the development of foreign policy 
legislation for the last two decades--James Nance and Meg Donovan.
  Admiral James W. Nance, known to everyone as ``Bud'', served as staff 
director of the Committee on Foreign Relations for most of the 1990s, 
working with his long-time friend, the Chairman of the Committee, 
Senator Helms. Admiral Nance was a steady hand in guiding the Committee 
staff for so many years, and was integral to the initial development of 
the ``Helms-Biden'' legislation in 1997.
  Meg Donovan was long-time staffer for our House counterpart 
committee, serving under Chairman Dante Fascell. After Chairman Fascell 
retired, Meg worked closely with the Foreign Relations Committee on 
behalf of Secretary Christopher, and then Secretary Albright, as a 
senior deputy in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs. Meg's advice and 
counsel was important on dozens of occasions--not only to senior State 
Department officials but also to our committee.
  Bud Nance and Meg Donovan were both deeply committed to a bipartisan 
foreign policy. They were both taken from us too soon. It is therefore 
in tribute to them that we have named this bill--which represents an 
important act of bipartisanship--in their honor.


              the need for small business superfund relief

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as we end this session of the 106th 
Congress, it is appropriate to reflect on what we have accomplished and 
what remains to be done. In particular, Mr. President, I would like to 
focus on our efforts to enact Superfund reform.
  As my colleagues know, I have fought for many Congresses to free our 
nation's recyclers from needless Superfund liability. I could not be 
more pleased to finally accomplish this goal by including the text of 
mine and Senator Daschle's bill, S. 1528, in this year's final 
appropriations package. I know many of you, on both sides of the aisle, 
join me in celebrating this long-awaited reform of an unfair system.
  However, our work is not done, Mr. President. Like the recyclers, 
thousands of small businesses are needlessly dragged into the Superfund 
web each year. Although Superfund is intended to clean up the nation's 
hazardous waste sites, small businesses are being sued for simply 
throwing out their trash. Certainly we can all agree that potato peels 
and cardboard boxes are far from toxic waste.
  Yet, another year has gone by without reform for small business. In 
that year, 165 small businesses in Quincy, Illinois were forced to pay 
over $3 million for legally sending trash to the local landfill. In 
that year, Administrator Browner again publicly stated her desire to 
get small businesses out of Superfund. In that year, reform efforts 
were again stymied by those who want to hold incremental reforms 
hostage to comprehensive fixes.
  Mr. President, we had the opportunity this year to enact targeted 
Superfund reform for small businesses, but we did not do so. Senators 
and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle, as well as the EPA, agree 
that we should provide the relief so desperately needed by the small 
business community. For nearly a decade, inaction has left thousands of 
small business owners with no choice but to mortgage their businesses, 
their employees and their future to pay for damage they did not do. 
Small businesses struggle to survive under the threat of thousands of 
dollars in penalties and lawsuits--all for legally disposing of their 
garbage.
  That's why, Mr. President, I will continue to work to free innocent 
small businesses from Superfund liability. I hope my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle will join me in the continued fight for fair 
treatment of the small businesses that keep our nation's economy 
strong.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have some comments on issues raised by 
the conference report to the Interior appropriations bill.
  On the matter of contract support costs for Bureau of Indian Affairs 
and Indian Health Service programs operated by native organizations 
under the provisions of P.L. 93-638, I am pleased that we have been 
able to add $10 million to BIA funding and $25 million to IHS funding 
over fiscal year 1999 levels to support additional payments of contract 
support costs for these programs. This new funding will allow BIA and 
IHS to bring existing programs' contract support cost payments closer 
to the full amount of negotiated support and will allow a limited 
number of new and expanded programs in both agencies to go forward.
  However, I am concerned that the tribes have been operating, in the 
distribution of contract support costs, under the assumption that 
contract support costs are an entitlement under the law. The House and 
Senate committees on appropriations have taken exception to that 
interpretation and have tried to persuade the IHS to change its 
allocation methodology and to set reasonable limits on the number and 
size of new and expanded contracts it executes consonant with resources 
made available by Congress for the payment of contract support costs. 
The Federal circuit's court of appeals in its October 27, 1999 decision 
in Babbitt v. Oglala Sioux Tribal Public Safety Department (1999 WL 
974155 (Fed. Cir.)) has now affirmed that contract support costs are 
not an entitlement, but rather are subject to appropriations. Contract 
support cases raising similar legal issues are pending in the 10th 
circuit court of appeals and in various Federal district courts around 
the country. The Federal circuit's decision was correct both in its 
holding and in its reasoning and should serve as precedent for other 
pending cases. To assume that Congress would create a system in which 
tribes receive the majority of their contract support costs through 
funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service or Bureau of Indian 
Affairs and which requires tribes to seek the balance in court through 
the claims and judgment fund turns logic on its ear. ``Subject to 
appropriations'' means what it says.
  The Indian Health Service has made improvements to its distribution 
methodology in fiscal year 1999 but continues to distribute funds at 
varying rates for different contracts, compacts and annual funding 
agreements. More disturbing, the current IHS system pays contractors 
with high overhead costs (relative to program costs) at the same 
percentage rate as it pays contractors with low overhead rates, 
rewarding inefficient operators and creating an incentive to 
maximize overhead costs.

[[Page S15047]]

  The bill allows the funding in FY 2000 of a limited number of new and 
expanded contracts through the Indian Self Determination (ISD) Fund of 
$10 million. It is expected that, once the contract support cost total 
(paid at an average rate not to fall above or below the average rate of 
payment of contract support costs to existing contractors in FY 2000) 
for new and expanded programs has reached $10 million, IHS will not 
execute any further new or expanded contracts until Congress has 
provided funds specifically earmarked for that purpose. Existing IHS 
policy does not permit reduction of existing service providers' funding 
in order to fund new entrants into the system. This bill does not 
modify that policy. If funds remain in the ISD fund after all new 
entrants have been accommodated, those funds should be distributed 
equitably across existing programs, with particular emphasis on the 
most underfunded.
  The Indian Health Service should include as part of its FY 2001 
budget request a detailed cost estimate for new and expanded contracts 
so that Congress will be aware of anticipated need when it establishes 
a funding level for an ISD account in FY 2001. Congress and the courts 
have made it plain that IHS can no longer enter into new and expanded 
contracts without regard to the level of funding provided for that 
purpose by Congress. Congress will be aided in its efforts to establish 
a reasonable level of support for new and expanded contracts if the IHS 
provides accurate estimates of anticipated need as part of the budget 
process.
  The authorizing committees in the Senate and House are encouraged, in 
consultation with the Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs and tribal organizations, to develop timely proposals to 
address the longer term issues surrounding contract support costs, 
including the apparent contradiction between the self-determination 
principles laid out in P.L. 93-638 and the legal requirement that 
contract support costs are ``subject to appropriations.''
  Our committees encourage the transition of employees from Federal to 
tribal employment as part of self-determination contracts and self-
governance compacts and strongly believe that the IHS should not 
provide disincentives for such transfers. We have noted that each year 
start-up costs from new and expanded contracts for the previous year 
are returned to the base for distribution to other contracts. These 
funds, currently estimated at $4.5 million, will be available in FY 
2000. With my support, the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations will soon be sending a letter to the IHS requesting that 
it set aside a portion of base contract support funds associated 
with prior year start up costs for use as a transition fund for costs 
associated with employees who elect to transfer from Federal employment 
to tribal employment during the period after which contract support 
costs for individual contracts have been determined for that year. To 
the extent set aside funds are not needed for employee transition, they 
should be distributed equitably among existing contractors, with 
emphasis on the most underfunded contracts.

  In the last fiscal year and the one we are funding now, we will have 
added a total of $60 million in new contract support cost funding to 
the IHS budget. We know that these funds are critical to the success of 
Indian-operated health programs and that shortfalls still remain. 
However, in the current environment of caps on discretionary spending, 
we must develop policies that support the self-determination principles 
embodied in P.L. 93-638 while taking into account the fiscal realities 
of limits on funding for these programs. I look forward to receiving 
recommendations from the authorizing committees, the IHS and BIA, and 
tribal organizations which will address these issues in time for the 
committees' consideration during the FY 2001 appropriations cycle.
  The conference report also includes a provision to authorize the 
investment of Exxon Valdez oil spill--or EVOS--settlement funds outside 
of the Treasury. This section is the exact language of legislation, S. 
711, reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
earlier this year, and represents an accord struck among many 
interests. The details of this accord are discussed more fully in the 
committee report (Senate Rpt. 106-124) accompanying S. 711. These 
interests include Koniag, a native regional corporation with a great 
interests in seeing that their native lands are valued at the level 
they feel appropriate given their prominence in the oil spill zone.
  The continuing availability of EVOS funds for habitat conservation 
raises another important issue I hope can be resolved in the coming 
months. It regards revenue sharing payments arising from oil spill area 
acquisitions. New additions to refuge lands, such as those from EVOS 
settlement land acquisitions, qualify adjacent communities to increased 
federal payments in lieu of taxes under the Revenue Sharing Act of 
1935.
  In 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to purchase from 
Old Harbor, Akiok-Kaguyak and Koniag Native Corporations over 160,000 
acres of land within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. These lands 
were acquired using funds derived from the consent decree in 
settling the United States' and State of Alaska's civil claims against 
Exxon, Inc. for damages caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989.

  The Exxon Valdez Trustee Council, which was formed to implement the 
consent decree, adopted its restoration plan in 1994 with habitat 
protection as a key component of the plan to recover the damages caused 
by the oil spill. The trustee council subsequently solicited interest 
from land owners throughout the spill zone and ranked the habitat based 
on its restoration value for the species and services injured by the 
spill. The council, working through State and Federal land managing 
agencies, commissioned land appraisals and authorized negotiations with 
land owners.
  Negotiated agreements with land owners, resulting in significant 
habitat acquisitions, exceeded the appraisals approved by Federal and 
State appraisers. The trustee council in its resolutions authorizing 
these acquisitions with settlement funds made several findings, I'm 
advised that these findings included the following:
  ``Biologists, scientists and other resource specialists agree that, 
in their best professional judgment, protection of habitat in the spill 
area to levels above and beyond that provided by existing laws and 
regulations will likely have a beneficial effect on recovery of injured 
resources and lost or diminished services provided by these 
resources.''
  ``There has been widespread public support for the acquisition of 
these lands, locally, within the spill zone and nationally.''
  ``It is ordinarily the Federal Government's practice to pay fair 
market value for the lands it acquires. However, due to the unique 
circumstances of this proposed acquisition, including the land's 
exceptional habitat for purposes of promoting recovery of natural 
resources injured by EVOS and the need to acquire it promptly to 
prevent degradation of the habitat, the trustee council believes it is 
appropriate in this case to pay more than fair market value for these 
particular parcels.''
  ``This offer is a reasonable price given the significant natural 
resource and service values protected; the scope and pervasiveness of 
the EVOS environmental disaster and the need for protection of 
ecosystems . . .''
  The trustee council-commissioned appraisals--which were performed in 
accordance with Federal regulations--for the three large parcels 
acquired within Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge are estimates of 
fair market value. However, they varied substantially from the 
landowners' appraisals and what they believed to be their fair market 
value. The landowners rejected the initial offers made by the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service to purchase the lands based on the trustee 
council's commissioned appraisals.

  The estimates of fair market value based on the Federal appraisals 
are below the prices actually paid for the various parcels of land, and 
they do not consider the purchase price paid in these and other 
governmental acquisitions in Alaska. The trustee council, through its 
public process, difficult negotiations and subsequent findings 
determined that the price paid for the lands was a ``reasonable price'' 
for a variety of reasons including past Federal large scale 
acquisitions.

[[Page S15048]]

  The acquisition in fee of these three large parcels within Kodiak NWR 
now requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make payments in 
lieu of taxes to the Kodiak Island borough in accordance with the 
Revenue Sharing Act of 1935. The act directs the agency to make such 
payments based on the fair market value of acquired lands.
  The service is currently using the federally approved appraisals 
estimating fair market value of these three large parcels as the basis 
for computing the revenue sharing payment to the borough. The borough 
has rightly challenged the service's determination of fair market value 
based on the unique circumstances of these acquisitions and the 
findings made by the trustee council in approving funds for these 
acquisitions.
  A plain reading of the Revenue Sharing Act (which authorizes the 
Secretary of the Interior to make refuge revenue sharing payments) 
requires that the determinations of fair market value be made in a 
manner that ``the Secretary considers to be equitable and in the public 
interest.'' Clearly, the public interest associated with these unique 
acquisitions has been well documented in the findings of the trustee 
council.
  The Revenue Sharing Act imposes no legal impediment for the Secretary 
to make a determination of fair market value that incorporates the 
unique circumstances of these acquisitions and the specific findings 
and actions taken by the trustee council. Thus, I urge the Secretary to 
review the Kodiak Island borough's appeal to the service's 
determinations for making revenue sharing payments and do what is fair 
and equitable as called for by the act.
  These are unique circumstances that exist nowhere else in the 
United States and are limited in Alaska to lands acquired in the Exxon 
Valdez spill zone with settlement funds. Thus, there should be no 
consequences for how revenue sharing payments are computed for service 
acquired lands in other parts of Alaska or throughout the rest of the 
country.

  At this opportunity, upon the passage of another year's funding for 
the Federal and Indian lands management agencies, I must call to the 
attention of my colleagues and to the attention of the President of the 
United States, an issue that troubles me deeply. Over the years, our 
Government has made commitments to native Americans which it has not 
kept. Many Americans thought that practice ended with the new, more 
enlightened self-determination approach to Indian policy. But as one of 
Alaska's representatives in the Senate, members of the President's 
staff made personal promises to me just last fall on behalf of the 
native people of the Chugach region which have not been kept.
  In 1971 Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
(ANCSA). The act cleared the way for Alaska native people, including 
the Chugach natives, to receive title to a small portion of their 
traditional lands as settlement of their aboriginal land claims. The 
act also cleared the way for the additional millions of acres to our 
national parks, wildlife refuges, forests, and wilderness areas. 
Allowing native people to develop their lands freed them from economic 
bondage to the Federal Government. No longer would they have to depend 
exclusively on the benevolence of the Federal Government for hand-outs. 
They could create their own jobs, generate their own income, and 
determine their own destiny. But only if they had access to their 
lands.
  Both the administration and the Congress recognized the lands would 
be virtually valueless if there was no way to get to them. The Claims 
Act recognized that native lands were to be used for both traditional 
and economic development purposes. Alaska natives were guaranteed a 
right of access, under law, to their lands across the vast new parks, 
refuges, and forests that would be created.
  In 1971 and again in 1982, under the terms of the Chugach Native Inc. 
settlement agreement, the Federal Government made a solemn vow to 
ensure the Chugach people had access to their aboriginal lands. Now, a 
quarter of a century later, that commitment has not been fulfilled. 
Many of the native leaders who worked with me to achieve the landmark 
Native Land Claims Settlement Act have died after waiting for decades 
without seeing that promise honored. Last year, Congressman Don Young, 
chairman of the House Resources Committee, added a provision to the 
House Interior appropriations bill that required, by a date certain, 
the Federal Government to live up to the access promises it made to the 
Chugach natives decades ago. In the conference last fall on the omnibus 
appropriations bill, the administration spoke passionately and 
repeatedly against the provision.

  Why? They fully admitted the obligation to grant an access easement 
exists. They acknowledged further that access delayed is access denied 
and that further delays were harmful to the Chugach people. They 
opposed the provision on the grounds that it was not necessary since 
they were going to move with all due haste to finalize the easement 
before the end of 1998. Katie McGinty, then head of the President's 
Council on Environmental Quality sat across from me, looked me in the 
eye, and promised me they would fulfill this long overdue promise 
before the end of the year.
  She even offered to issue a ``Presidential proclamation'' promising 
once again to do what had already been promised and promised and 
promised. My staff worked with OMB on the content of such a 
proclamation, but I told them it would not be necessary. I would take 
her at her word and believed the administration would live up to the 
personal commitment she made to me.
  Here we are a year later. Chugach still has not received its 
easement. Ms. McGinty is gone, but her commitment on behalf of this 
administration remains. It is now the responsibility of others to 
ensure the promises she made to me and to Alaska's native people are 
kept.
  Congressman Young's House resources Committee has reported a bill, 
H.R. 2547, to address this issue legislatively, in the hope of forcing 
the administration to do what it has promised to do. Senator Murkowski 
has been tireless in his efforts to get the Federal Government to live 
up to the promises made to Alaskans concerning access to our State and 
native lands. I support those efforts.
  But I take the time today to say clearly to this administration that 
the promises made by our Government to the Chugach people for access to 
their lands--and to me personally as their representative--must be 
honored. Make no mistake, if the promises made to me by officials in 
this administration last fall are not lived up to soon, if they oppose 
the efforts of Congressman Young and Senator Murkowski on this issue, 
if they continue to obfuscate and ``slow roll'' this commitment, it 
will be clear to all that his administration does not perceive the true 
meaning of Robert Service's memorable phrase: ``A promise made is a 
debt unpaid!''
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President. On behalf of myself and my cosponsor, 
Minority Leader Daschle, I would like to insert in the Record a 
legislative history which describes the purpose of each section of S. 
1528, the Superfund Recycling Equity Act of 1999. Throughout the 
negotiations of this language there has been quite a bit of 
misrepresentation of the purpose of this bill. I hope this will be 
useful in clearing the confusion.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the legislative history 
be inserted in the Record at this point.

                    Legislative History for S. 1528


                  section 127--recycling transactions

                                Summary

       The Superfund Recycling Equity Act of 1999 (the language of 
     S. 1528) seeks to correct the unintended consequence of 
     CERCLA that actually discourages legitimate recycling. The 
     Act recognizes that recycling is an activity distinct from 
     disposal or treatment, thus sending material for recycling is 
     not the same as arranging for disposal or treatment, and 
     recyclable materials are not a waste. Removing the threat of 
     CERCLA liability for recyclers will encourage more recycling 
     at all levels.
       The Act has three major elements. First, it creates a new 
     CERCLA Sec. 127 which clarifies liability for recycling 
     transactions. Second, it defines those recycling transactions 
     for which there is no liability by providing that only those 
     persons who can demonstrate that they ``arranged for the 
     recycling of recyclable material'' as defined by the criteria 
     in sections 127(c) through (e) are not liable under section 
     107(a)(3) or (a)(4). The specific definition of ``arranged 
     for recycling'' varies depending upon the recyclable material 
     involved. Third, a series of exclusions from the liability 
     clarification are specified such that

[[Page S15049]]

     persons who arranged for recycling as defined above may still 
     be liable under CERCLA sections 107(a)(3) or (4) if the party 
     bringing an action against such person can prove one of a 
     number of criteria specified in Sec. 127(f). Lastly, new 
     CERCLA Sec. Sec. 127(g) through 127(l) clarify several 
     miscellaneous issues regarding the proper application of the 
     liability clarification.

                               Discussion

       Sec. 127(a)(1) is intended to make it clear that anyone 
     who, subject to the requirements of Sec. 127(b), (c), (d) and 
     (e) arranged for the recycling of recyclable materials is not 
     held liable under Sec. Sec. 107(a)(3) or (4) of CERCLA. 
     Sec. 127 provides for relief from liability for both 
     retroactive and prospective transactions.
       Sec. 127(a)(2) is intended to preserve the legal defenses 
     that were available to a party prior to enactment of this Act 
     for those materials not covered by either the definition of a 
     recyclable material in Sec. 127(b) or the definition of a 
     recycling transaction within the bill. It is not Congress' 
     intent that the absence of a material or transaction from 
     coverage under this Act create a stigma subjecting such 
     material or transaction to Superfund liability.
       Sec. 127(b)(1) is meant to include the broad spectrum of 
     materials that are recycled and used in place of virgin 
     material feedstocks. Whole scrap tires have been excluded 
     from eligibility under this provision because of concerns 
     about the environmental and health hazards associated with 
     stockpiles of whole scrap tires. Processed tires including 
     material from tires that have been cut or granulated, are 
     eligible for the benefits of this provision.
       The term ``recyclable materials'' is defined to include 
     ``minor amounts of material incident to or adhering to the 
     scrap material . . .'' This is because in the normal course 
     of scrap processing various recovered materials may be 
     commingled. An appliance may, for example, be run though a 
     shredder that also shreds automobiles. As a result, the metal 
     recovered from the appliance may come into contact with oil 
     that entered the shredded incident to an automobile. Numerous 
     other examples exist.
       Sec. 127(b)(1)(A) is intended to exclude from the 
     definition of recyclable material shipping containers between 
     30 and 3000 liters capacity which have hazardous substances 
     other than metal bits and pieces in them. The terms 
     ``contained in'' or ``adhering to'' do not include any metal 
     alloy, including hazardous substances such as chromium or 
     nickel, that are metallurgically or chemically bonded in the 
     steel to meet appropriate container specifications.
       Sec. 127(b)(1)(B) means that any item of material which 
     contained PCBs at a concentration of more than 50 parts per 
     million (``ppm'') at the time of the transaction does not 
     qualify as recyclable material. Material, which previously 
     held a concentration of PCBs in excess of 50 ppm, but has 
     been cleaned to levels below 50 ppm, would still qualify for 
     exempt treatment. Item, in this context, is meant to apply 
     only to a distinct unit of material, not an entire shipment.
       This legislation builds a test to determine what are 
     recycling transaction that should be encouraged under the 
     legislation and what are recycling transactions that are 
     really treatment or disposal arrangements cloaked in the 
     mantle of recycling. The test specified in 127(c) applies to 
     transactions involving scrap paper, plastic, glass, textiles, 
     or rubber. Transactions can be a sale to a consuming 
     facility; a return for recycling, whether or not accompanied 
     by a fee; or other similar agreement.
       Sec. 127(c), (d) and (e), the term ``or otherwise arranging 
     for the recycling of recyclable material'' recognizes that 
     while recyclables have intrinsic value they may not always be 
     sold for a net positive amount. Thus a transaction in which 
     one who arranges for recycling does not receive any 
     remuneration for the material but rather pays an amount, less 
     than the cost of disposal, still qualifies for the protection 
     afforded by this Sec. 127.
       A commercial specification grade as referred to in 
     Sec. 127(c)91), can include specifications as those published 
     by industry trade associations, or other historically or 
     widely utilized specifications are acceptable. It is also 
     recognized that specifications will continue to evolve as 
     market conditions and technologies change.
       For purposes of Sec. 127(c)(3), evidence of a market can 
     include, but is not limited to: a third-party published price 
     (including a negative price), a market with more than one 
     buyer or one seller for which there is a documentable price, 
     and a history of trade in the recyclable material.
       Sec. 127(c)(3) means that for a transaction to be deemed 
     arranging for recycling, a substantial portion, but not all, 
     of the recyclable material must have been sold with the 
     intention that the material would be used as a raw material, 
     in place of a virgin material, in the manufacture of a new 
     product. The fact that the recyclable material was not, for 
     some reason beyond the control of the person who arranged for 
     recycling, actually used in the manufacture of a new product 
     should not be evidence that the requirements of this Sec. 127 
     were not met.
       Additionally, no single benchmark or recovery rate is 
     appropriate given variable market conditions, changes in 
     technology, and differences between commodities. Instead, a 
     common sense evaluation of how much of the material is 
     recovered is appropriate. For example, in order to be 
     economically viable as a recycling transaction a relatively 
     high volume of the inbound material is expected to be 
     recovered for feedstocks of relatively low per unit economic 
     value (such as paper or plastic), while a dramatically lower 
     volume of material is expected to be recovered to justify the 
     recycling of a feedstock of very high economic value (such as 
     gold or silver).
       It is not necessary that the person who arranged for 
     recycling document that a substantial portion of the 
     recyclable material was actually used to make a new product. 
     Instead, the person need only be prepared to demonstrate that 
     it is common practice for recyclable materials that he 
     handles to be made available for use in the manufacture of a 
     new saleable product. For example, if recyclable stainless 
     steel is sold to a stainless steel smelter, it is presumptive 
     that recycling will occur.
       The first part of Sec. 127(c)(4) acknowledges the fact that 
     modern technology has developed to the point were some 
     consuming facilities exclusively utilize recyclable materials 
     as their raw material feedstock and manufacture a product 
     that, had it been made at another facility, may have been 
     manufactured using virgin materials. Thus, the fact that the 
     recyclable material did not directly displace a virgin 
     material as the raw material feedstock should not be evidence 
     that the requirements of Sec. 127 were not met.
       Secondary feedstocks may compete both directly and 
     indirectly with virgin or primary feedstocks. In some cases a 
     secondary feedstock can directly substitute for a virgin 
     material in the same manufacturing process. In other cases, 
     however, a secondary feedstock used at a particular 
     manufacturing plant may not be a direct substitute for a 
     virgin feedstock, but the product of that plant completes 
     with a product made elsewhere from virgin material. For 
     example aluminum may be utilized at a given facility using 
     either virgin or secondary feedstocks meeting certain 
     specifications. In this case, the virgin and secondary 
     feedstock materials compete directly. A particular steel 
     mill, however, may only utilize scrap iron and steel as a 
     feedstock because of the design restrictions of the 
     facility. If that mill makes a steel product that competes 
     with the steel product of another mill, which utilizes a 
     virgin feedstock, the conditions of this paragraph have 
     been met. In this example, the two streams of feedstock 
     materials do not directly compete, but the product made 
     from them do. It is the intent of this paragraph that the 
     person be able to demonstrate the general use for which 
     the feedstock material was utilized. It is not the intent 
     that the person show that a specific unit was incorporated 
     into a new product.
       Section 127 provides for relief from liability for both 
     retroactive and prospective transactions. However, an 
     additional requirement is placed on prospective transactions 
     in this paragraph such that persons arranging for such 
     transactions take reasonable care to determine the 
     environmental compliance status of the facility to which the 
     recyclable material is being sent. Reasonable care is 
     determined using a variety of factors, of which no one factor 
     is determinant. The clause ``not procedural or 
     administratrative'' is included to protect one who arranges 
     for recycling from losing the protection afforded by Sec. 127 
     due to a record keeping error, missed deadline or similar 
     infraction by the consuming facility which is out of control 
     of the person arranging for recycling. For transactions 
     occurring prior to, or during the 90 days after, enactment of 
     Sec. 127 the requirements of Sec. 127(c)(5) shall not be 
     considered in determining whether Sec. 127 shall apply.
       The person arranging for the transaction must exercise 
     reasonable care at the time of the transaction (i.e., at the 
     time when the buyer and seller reach a meeting of the minds). 
     Should a consuming facility's compliance record indicate past 
     non-compliance with the environmental laws, but at the time 
     the person arranged for the transaction the person exercised 
     reasonable care to determine that the consuming facility was 
     in compliance with all applicable laws, the transaction would 
     qualify for relief under Sec. 127.
       In addition, the person must only determine the status of 
     the consuming facility's compliance with laws, regulations, 
     or orders, which directly apply to the handling, processing, 
     reclamation, storage, or other management activity associated 
     with the recyclable materials sent by the person. Thus, for 
     example, a person who arranges for the recycling of scrap 
     metal to a consuming facility would not be responsible for 
     determining the consuming facility's compliance with 
     regulations governing the consuming facilities production of 
     its product, just the consuming facility's compliance with 
     management of the scrap metal as an in-feed material.
       It is common practice in the industry for scrap processors 
     to otherwise arrange for the recycling of a secondary 
     material through a broker. The broker chooses to which 
     consuming facility the secondary material will be sold. In 
     such cases, it is the responsibility of the broker, not 
     the original person who entered into the transaction with 
     the broker, to take reasonable care to determine the 
     compliance status of the consuming facility. Likewise, a 
     scrap processor may sell material to a consuming facility 
     which in turn arranges for recycling of all or part of 
     that material to another consuming facility. It is only 
     the responsibility of the scrap processor to inquire into 
     the compliance status of the party he arranged the 
     transaction with, not subsequent parties.

[[Page S15050]]

       In determining whether a person exercised reasonable care, 
     the criteria to be applied should be considered in the 
     context of the time of the transaction. Thus, when looking at 
     ``the price paid in the recycling transaction'' in 
     Sec. 127(c)(6)(A) one should look not only at whether the 
     price bore a reasonable relationship to other transactions 
     for similar materials at the time of the transaction in 
     question but should also take into account the circumstances 
     surrounding the individual transaction such as whether it was 
     part of a long term deal involving significant quantities. In 
     addition, market conditions vary considerably over any given 
     time period for any given commodity. Thus, when determining 
     whether the price paid was reasonable, general market 
     conditions, and variations should be considered.
       Congress recognizes that small businesses often have less 
     resources available to them than large businesses. Thus, 
     Sec. 127(c)(6)(B) acknowledges the fact that a small company 
     may be able to determine less information about the consuming 
     facility's operations than a large company. The size of an 
     individual facility may be an important factor in the 
     facility's ability to detect the nature of the consuming 
     facility's operations.
       Sec. 127(c)(6)(c) requires a responsible person who 
     arranges for the recycling of a recyclable material to 
     inquire of the appropriate environmental agencies as to the 
     compliance status of the consuming facility. Federal, State, 
     and local agencies may not respond quickly (or respond at 
     all) to inquiries made regarding a specific facility's 
     compliance record. Sec. 127(c)(5) only requires a person to 
     make reasonable inquiries; inquiries need not be made before 
     every transaction. Inquiries need only be made to those 
     agencies having primary responsibilities over environmental 
     matters related to the handling, processing, etc. of the 
     secondary materials involved in the recycling transaction.
       Sec. 127(d)(1)(B) provides that a person who arranges for 
     the recycling of scrap metal must meet all of the criteria 
     set forth in Sec. 127(c) as they relate to scrap metal and be 
     in compliance with federal regulations or standards 
     associated with scrap metal recycling that were in effect at 
     the time of the transaction in question (not regulations 
     promulgated or standards issued sequent to the time of the 
     transaction). In addition, compliance must only be shown with 
     Solid Waste Disposal Act regulations, which were promulgated 
     and came into effect  subsequent to enactment of Sec. 127.
       Section 127(d)(1)(C) as modified by Sec. 127(d)(2) is not 
     intended to exclude from liability relief such activities as 
     welding, cutting metals with a torch, ``sweating'' iron from 
     aluminum or other similar activities.
       Section 127(d)(3) defines scrap metal using the regulatory 
     definition found at 40 CFR 261.1 The Administrator is given 
     the authority to exclude, by regulation, scrap metals that 
     are determined not to warrant the exclusion from liability. 
     Because Sec. 127 grants relief from liability both 
     prospectively and retroactively, any exclusion by the 
     Administrator would only apply to transactions occurring 
     after notice, comment and the final promulgation of a rule to 
     such effect.
       Persons who arrange for the recycling of spent batteries 
     must meet the criteria specified in Sec. 127(e), in addition 
     to the criteria already discussed above and laid out in 
     Sec. 127(c) for transactions involving scrap paper, plastic, 
     glass, textiles, or rubber.
       The act of recovering the valuable components of a battery 
     refers to the breaking (or smelting) of the battery itself in 
     order to reclaim the valuable components of such battery. The 
     generation, transportation, and collection of such batteries 
     by persons who arrange for their recycling is an activity 
     distinct from recovery. Thus, a person who generates, 
     transports, and/or collects a spent battery, but does not 
     themselves break or smelt such battery, is not liable under 
     Sec. Sec. 107(a)(3) and (4) provided all other requirements 
     set out in this Section are met.
       Section 127(e)(2)(A) provides that for spent lead-acid 
     batteries, the party seeking the exemption must show that it 
     met the federal environmental regulations or standards in 
     effect at the time of the transaction in question (not 
     regulations or standards issued subsequent to the time of the 
     transaction).
       Persons who arrange for recycling as defined by the 
     criteria specified in sections 127(a)-(e) and discussed above 
     may be liable under CERCLA Sec. Sec. 107(a)(3) or (4) if the 
     party bringing an action against such a person can 
     demonstrate that one of the exclusions provided for in 
     section 127(f) apply. Thus, the burden is on the government 
     or other complaining party to demonstrate the criteria 
     specified in section 127(f).
       Sec. 127(f)(1)(A) is intended to mean that an ``objectively 
     reasonable basis for belief'' is not equivalent to the 
     reasonable care standard. The objectively reasonable basis 
     for belief standard is meant to be a more rigorous standard 
     than the reasonable care standard.
       Sec. 127(f)(1)(A)(i) means that in order for the government 
     to show that a recycling transaction should not receive the 
     benefit of Sec. 127, it would have to prove that a person 
     knew that the material would not be recycled. Moreover, it is 
     not necessary that every component of the recyclable material 
     be recycled and actually find its way into a new product in 
     order to meet this requirement.
       For the purposes of Sec. 127(f)(1)(A)(ii), smelting, 
     refining, sweating, melting, and other operations which are 
     conducted by a consuming facility for purposes of materials 
     recovery are not considered incineration, nor would they be 
     categorized as burning as fuel or for energy recovery. 
     However, nothing in this bill shall be construed to limit the 
     definition of recycling so as to restrict, inhibit, or 
     otherwise discourage the recovery of energy through 
     pyroprocessing from scrap rubber and other recyclable 
     materials by boilers and industrial furnaces (such as cement 
     kilns).
       Sec. 127(f)(1)(A)(iii) sets forth certain obligations upon 
     one who arranges for a recycling transaction which occurs 
     within the first 90 days after enactment and had an 
     objectively reasonable basis to believe that the consuming 
     facility was not in substantive compliance with environmental 
     laws and regulations. This is the corollary to 
     Sec. 127(c)(5). The clause ``not procedural or 
     administrative'' is included to protect one who arranges for 
     recycling from losing the protection afforded by Sec. 127 due 
     to record keeping error, missed deadline or similar 
     infraction by the consuming facility which is out of control 
     of the person arranging for recycling. There is no 
     expectation that the person who arranged for recycling would 
     necessarily have carried out any type of records search or 
     made any extensive inquiries of administrative agencies.
       The provision in Sec. 127(f)(1)(B) is intended to apply to 
     persons who intentionally add hazardous substances to the 
     recyclable material in order to dispose or otherwise rid 
     themselves of the substance.
       Sec. 127(f)(1)(C) is intended to mean that reasonable care 
     is to be judged based on industry practices and standards at 
     the time of the transaction. Thus, in order to determine if a 
     person failed to exercise reasonable care with respect to the 
     management and handling of the recyclable material, one 
     should look to the usual and customary management and 
     handling practices in the industry at the time of the 
     transaction.
       In enacting Sec. 127(i) Congress clearly intends that the 
     exemptions from liability granted by Sec. 127 shall not 
     affect any concluded judicial or administrative action. 
     Concluded action means any lawsuit in which a final judgment 
     has been entered or any administrative action, which has been 
     resolved by consent decree, which has been filed in a court 
     of law and approved by such court. Furthermore, Sec. 127 
     shall not affect any pending judicial action brought by the 
     United States prior to enactment of this section. Any pending 
     judicial action, whether it was brought in a trial or 
     appellate court, by a private party shall be subject to the 
     grant of relief from liability. For purposes of this section, 
     Congress intends that any third party action or joinder of 
     defendants brought by a private party shall be considered a 
     private party action, regardless of whether or not the 
     original lawsuit was brought by the United States. 
     Additionally, any administrative action brought by any 
     governmental agency but not yet concluded as set forth above, 
     shall be subject to the grant of relief from liability set 
     forth in this Sec. 127.
       Sec. 127(l)(1) preserves the rights of a person to whom 
     Sec. 127(a)(1) does not apply to raise any defenses that 
     might otherwise be raised under CERCLA. This is consistent 
     with the explanation for Sec. 127(a)(2).
       By adding Sec. 127(l)(2) Congress intended to make certain 
     that no presumption of liability is created against a person 
     solely because that person is not afforded the relief granted 
     by Sec. 127(a)(1).
  Mr. DASCHLE. This past Wednesday--the day we finally produced a 
fragile budget agreement--marked the 199th anniversary of the first 
time Congress ever met in Washington, DC. They met that day in what was 
then an unfinished Capitol. Several times during the negotiations, the 
thought occurred to me that, if the same people who are running this 
Congress were in charge back then, the Capitol might still be 
unfinished.
  These negotiations took longer, and were more difficult, than they 
needed to be. The good news is: We finally have a budget that will keep 
America moving in the right direction. Many longtime members and 
observers of Congress say this has been perhaps the most confusing, 
convoluted budget process they can remember.
  There have been a lot of technical questions these last few weeks 
about accounting methods, economic growth projections, and CBO versus 
OMB scoring. But the big question--the fundamental question that was at 
the heart of this budget debate--is quite simple: Are we going to move 
forward--or backward?
  We have chosen, thank goodness, to move forward. This budget 
continues the progress we've made over the last seven years. It 
maintains our hard-won fiscal discipline. It invests in America's 
future. And it honors our values.
  This budget will put more teachers in our children's classrooms, and 
more police on our streets. It will enable us to honor our commitments 
to our parents, and fulfill America's obligations as a world leader. 
And, it will enable us to protect our environment and preserve precious 
wilderness areas for generations not yet born.
  I want to thank the Majority Leader, my Democratic colleagues, 
especially Senator Harry Reid, our whip, and

[[Page S15051]]

Senator Robert Byrd, ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. I 
also want to thank some of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, particularly Senator Stevens, chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  In addition, I want to acknowledge and thank President Clinton and 
Vice President Gore, as well as the incredibly skillful, patient White 
House negotiating team, especially Chief of Staff John Podesta, Deputy 
Chief of Staff Sylvia Matthews, OMB Director Jack Lew; Larry Stein and 
Chris Jennings.
  I also want to thank my own staff, and the staff of Appropriations 
Committee, who have worked many weekends, many late nights, to turn our 
ideas and debate into a workable budget document.
  Finally, I want to acknowledge our dear friend, the late Senator John 
Chafee. Losing Senator Chafee so suddenly was one of the saddest 
moments in this difficult year. He embodied what is best about the 
Senate. He was a reasonable, honorable man who cared deeply about 
people. Completing the budget process was a major challenge. But in the 
end, I believe we have produced a budget John Chafee would have 
approved of.
  This budget invests in our children's education - the best investment 
any nation can make. It maintains our commitment to reduce class size 
by hiring 100,000 teachers. It contains money to help communities 
repair old schools and build new ones. It will enable more children to 
get a Head Start in school, and in life. And it will allow more young 
people to attend after-school programs where they will be safe, and 
where they will have responsible adult supervision.
  This budget protects Medicare beneficiaries by providing fair 
payments to the hospitals, clinics, home health care providers and 
nursing homes they rely on.
  This budget will make our communities safer by putting 50,000 more 
police officers on the street--in addition to the 100,000 who have 
already been hired--and by investing in youth crime prevention.
  This budget will help keep Americans healthy . . . by reducing hunger 
and malnutrition among pregnant women, infants and young children . . . 
and by increasing funding for the National Institute of Health and the 
national Centers for Disease Control.
  This budget protects our environment. We took out riders that would 
have harmed our environment, and put in money to fund the President's 
Lands Legacy program.
  This budget will help working families find affordable housing.
  It will help farm and ranch families weather these hard times.
  This budget protects our national security . . . by increasing 
military pay and readiness . . . and by reducing the nuclear threat at 
home and around the world.
  This budget will help us fulfill our responsibilities as the world's 
only superpower. It provides money to pay our UN arrears and fund the 
Wye Accord to promote peace to the Middle East. It will also enable us 
to ease the crushing burden of debt on some of the world's poorest 
countries, so those nations can begin to invest in their own futures.
  At the beginning of the year, our Republican colleagues proposed an 
$800 billion tax cut. For months, we all heard a lot of debate about 
what such a huge tax cut would mean. This budget makes it clear. There 
is no way we could have paid for an $800 billion tax cut without 
exploding the deficit again, or raiding Medicare, education, and other 
programs working families depend on.
  Instead of moving backwards on taxes, we're moving forward. We're 
cutting taxes the right way. We're widening the circle of opportunity . 
. . by extending the R&D tax credit, and other tax credits that 
stimulate the economy . . . and by empowering people with disabilities 
by allowing them to maintain their Medicare and Medicaid coverage when 
they return to work.
  There is one other point I want to make about the budget: For every 
dollar Democrats succeeded in restoring these last few weeks . . . for 
teachers, and police officers and other critical priorities . . . we 
have provided a dollar in offsets. Dollar for dollar, every one of our 
priorities is paid for. If CBO determines that this budget exceeds the 
caps, the overspending is in the basic budget our Republican colleagues 
drafted--on their own.


                         the unfinished agenda

  As I said, Mr. President, this budget does move the country in the 
right direction--but only incrementally. My great regret and 
frustration with this Congress, is that we have achieved so little 
beyond this budget.
  Look what we are leaving undone! In a year in which gun violence 
horrified America . . . a year in which gun violence invaded our 
schools and even a day care center . . . the far right has prevented 
this Congress from passing even the most modest gun safety measures--
measures that would make it harder for children and criminals to get 
guns.
  The far right has prevented this Congress--so far--from passing a 
Patients' Bill of Rights. More than 90 percent of Americans--Democrats 
and Republicans--support a real Patients' Bill of Rights that holds 
HMOs accountable. So does the AMA, the American Nurses Association--and 
200 other health care and consumer organizations. And so does a 
bipartisan majority in both the House and Senate. Yet the Republican 
leaders in this Congress continue to use parliamentary tricks to deny 
patients their rights. As we leave here for the year, HMO reform, like 
gun safety, has been stuck for months in the black hole of conference 
committees.
  The Republican leadership clearly is hoping that we will forget about 
all the shootings . . . forget about the families who have been injured 
because some HMO accountant overruled their doctor and denied needed 
medical treatment. I am here to tell them: The American people will not 
forget. And neither will Senate Democrats.
  We will fight to close the gun show loophole. And we will fight to 
pass a real Patients' Bill of Rights next year. We will continue the 
fight for meaningful campaign finance reform. We will continue the 
fight to preserve and strengthen Medicare--including adding a 
prescription drug benefit. We will resume the fight for a decent 
minimum wage increase. We will fight for a fair resolution of the 
dairy-pricing issue. And, we will restore the rural loan guarantee 
program for satellite TV service, so rural Americans aren't left with 
second-class service.
  It's taken a long time, but we finally have a budget that keeps 
America moving in the right direction. That is a relief, and a victory 
for the American people. But we still have a long way to go. We are 
leaving here with too many urgent needs unmet. We must do better next 
year.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Superfund Recycling Equity Act, S. 
1528, is being sent to the President as part of H.R. 3194. This is a 
great day for environmental law--this is the day that the public policy 
restores recycling as a rewarded, rather than punished activity.
  This is a great day because partisan feuding was set aside so that 
the Congress could find a realistic, incremental, and common sense 
environmental fix. The freestanding Superfund Recycling Equity Act has 
strong bipartisan support with 68 cosponsors--68 Senators who have 
worked together to advance a fix to a small piece of the Superfund 
debate.
  In this controversial world of environmental legislation it is rare 
that the leaders of the two parties in either Congressional body would 
agree on a piece of legislation. Well, here in the Senate we do. I wish 
to thank Minority Leader Daschle who understood the merits of recycling 
and twice joined with me to sponsor this legislation. Without his 
leadership, this legislation would not have been possible.
  Mr. President, I would also like to commend the Senators who 
originally joined Senator Daschle and me in introducing this 
legislation. Senators Warner and Lincoln, who sponsored this measure in 
a previous Congress, have long exhibited their enthusiasm for fixing 
recycling rules. They are true leaders--leaders who have fostered this 
reasonable, workable, environmental proposal. Senator Baucus, the 
Ranking Minority Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
has also been an avid supporter of recycling by including a version of 
the Superfund Recycling Equity Act in his comprehensive Superfund 
reform bill in the 103rd Congress. His six years of leadership in 
trying to fix public policy for recyclers is appreciated.

[[Page S15052]]

  Mr. President, this bill would not be where it is at today, on the 
cusp of becoming law, had it not been for the active support of the 
late Senator John Chafee--a dear friend to me and many of our 
colleagues. John Chafee was a respected leader of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. His advice and counsel helped shape my bill and 
he was an original cosponsor. I am proud to have been associated with 
him on this bill and its legislative process. I consider it a tribute 
that this bipartisan bill, negotiated with the Administration, 
representatives of the national environmental community, and the 
recycling industry, was supported by John Chafee, a man for whom 
consensus was so important. I believe this is not a footnote to John 
Chafee's legacy; rather I believe that he made this kind of cooperation 
possible.
  The former mayor of Warwick, Rhode Island, is now the newly appointed 
Senator from Rhode Island. I have already had an opportunity to hear 
our newest senator--Senator Lincoln Chafee--tell me about what Warwick 
has done with regards to recycling. It is a proud record--a record that 
would be extended and enhanced by this bill. I find it a credit to John 
Chafee's legacy that his son would be working with me on this 
legislation. Less than a month in the Senate and already Lincoln's 
voice is being heard in ways that will directly help Rhode Island.
  Mr. President, I also must recognize the vision of trade associations 
like American Petroleum Institute and National Federation of 
Independent Businesses for supporting an incremental solution. It would 
have been easier for these groups to oppose the bill because it did not 
address all the fixes for which they have been advocating. However, AFI 
and NFIB recognized that this increment would not jeopardize their 
efforts; rather it exemplifies the efforts of various stakeholders to 
accomplish something positive for the environment albeit it 
incremental.
  And finally, I must thank the various staff members who have 
diligently worked toward the passage of this legislation: Eric Washburn 
and Peter Hanson of Senator Daschle's staff, Tom Gibson and Barbara 
Rogers of the Environment and Public Works committee staff, Charles 
Barnett of Senator Lincoln's staff, Ann Loomis of Senator Warner's 
staff, and my former staffer, Kristy Simms, who set the stage for this 
years success.
  While too often Senators have seen various interest groups tell 
Congress why we cannot achieve some worthy environmental goal, the 
history of the Superfund Recycling Equity Act is replete with evidence 
of people coming together to correct a problem. Everyone, including 
myself, realizes that comprehensive reform is necessary to fix the vast 
array of problems in many different sectors of the environmental 
community. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world, so 
Congress must do what is achievable whenever it is possible. This is 
good public policy --increments will show all parties there is a bridge 
for bipartisan environmental fixes. Recycling is the first of many 
necessary fixes, and I would bet my colleagues that it will not be the 
last fix.
  This is a great day for many environmental groups who saw a change 
that they supported, not be taken hostage by the debate that has for so 
many years paralyzed reforms to Superfund. The original negotiation 
that resulted in the basis of the bill was tough and long--but it was 
fair. Each of the negotiating partners left items on the table that 
they would have wanted in an otherwise perfect world. Their collective 
approach was always bipartisan--they never pitted one party against 
another by pledging one group of interests against another. They 
remained loyal to their agreement for an unheard of five years--an 
eternity in Washington. Though this legislation was a long time in 
coming, I am grateful for its passage.

  Mr. President, this is a great day for my good friend and fellow 
Mississippian, Phillip Morris. It is also a great day for the thousands 
of mom-and-pop recycling firms across America, like the one owned by 
Phillip Morris. This legislation protects the legacy of these firms 
which in most cases have been handed down through generations--often 
started by new immigrants to America nearly a hundred years ago. This 
ends the long Superfund nightmare that our nation's recyclers have 
suffered. Each time they sold their recyclable products they were, 
unintentionally, exposing themselves to costly Superfund liability. 
Removing Superfund as an impediment to recycling is a predicate to 
higher recycling rates throughout the nation.
  The Superfund Equity Act is not about special interests getting a 
fix. No, this bill is about representing constituent interests 
throughout America and promoting the public interest. That is why 
Senator Daschle and I have 68 cosponsors--cosponsors that range 
completely across the liberal and conservative political spectrum, and 
range across all regions of America.
  Mr. President, let me be clear, the Superfund Recycling Equity Act 
corrects a mistake nobody intended to make. When the Comprehensive 
Emergency Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was enacted 
in 1980, there was no suggestion that traditional recyclables--paper, 
plastic, glass, metal, textiles, and rubber were ever intended to be 
subject to Superfund liability. As a result of court interpretations, 
however, the sale of recyclables as manufacturing feedstock was 
considered to be arranging for the disposal of the material and, 
therefore, subject to Superfund's liability scheme. However, as we have 
all come to know as a matter of public policy, recycling is not 
disposal; it is the exact opposite of disposal.
  Mr. President, let me say that again--recycling is not disposal, and 
a law is needed to remove this confusion. Sad, but true.
  Enactment of this legislation clarifies this point and corrects the 
misinterpretations that have cost recyclers--primarily small family-
owned businesses--millions and millions of dollars for problems they 
did not cause. With passage of the Superfund Recycling Equity Act, the 
costs of cleanup at sites that utilize recyclable materials as 
feedstock will be borne, rightfully, by those persons who actually 
cause or contribute to the pollution. As a result, those facilities 
will be less likely to cause contamination because they will no longer 
have recyclers to help them pay for Superfund cleanup. That's a 
powerful market incentive and will cause the consuming facility to 
become more environmentally conscientious.
  Let me be clear, this legislation will not alter the basic tenants of 
environmental law--polluters will still pay. This legislation does not 
relieve recyclers of Superfund liability where they have polluted their 
own facilities. It also does not protect these businesses when they 
have sent materials destined for disposal to landfills or other 
facilities where those materials contributed, in whole or in part, to 
the pollution of those facilities. Furthermore, the public can expect 
recyclers to continue to be environmentally vigilant because they must 
operate their businesses in an environmentally sound manner, in order 
to be relieved of Superfund liability.
  Today is a victory for coalition building that avoids the attack 
strategies that are so often employed by trade associations in DC. I 
hope they see the wisdom in building coalitions around achievable 
increments. This is how Congress can move forward. This is how Congress 
shows that it not only hears from its constituents but it acts 
successfully. Hostage taking, distortion, and scorch the earth 
approaches are not productive legislative strategies or lobbying 
tactics. Trade associations need to seek achievable solutions, develop 
responsible legislative goals, and avoid Beltway attack politics. I am 
extremely pleased that Congress has been able to take this tiny but 
very important step forward in reforming the Superfund law. I hope this 
accomplishment will inspire others to work for sensible, incremental 
solutions that help both our environment and our nation's economy.
  I am proud that today Congress leveled the playing field and created 
equity in the statutory treatment of recycled material and virgin 
materials. I am proud to have removed the disincentives to recycling 
without loosening any existing liability laws for polluters. I am proud 
to have represented the mom and pop recyclers across America. I'm 
especially proud of the fact that this was all done in a bipartisan 
manner.

[[Page S15053]]

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, 2 years ago, as part of the effort to 
balance the Federal budget, Congress enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997--which we have come to know as the ``BBA.'' Among other 
provisions, the BBA enacted major changes in the way Medicare pays for 
medical services. As implementation of these changes proceeds, concerns 
have been raised that some of them are having unintended consequences 
that threaten the viability of health care providers--and consequently 
the overall availability of health care to our constituents.
  In order to alleviate some of these unintended consequences of the 
BBA, the appropriations conference report before the Senate today 
incorporates by reference H.R. 3426, the ``Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP 
Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999.'' This legislation will restore 
some $17 billion over 10 years to hospitals, skilled nursing 
facilities, home health agencies, and other Medicare and Medicaid 
providers. The bill will also facilitate administrative actions that 
will provide an additional $10 billion of relief to hospital outpatient 
departments.
  H.R. 3426 has many important provisions; here are some of the 
highlights:
  Teaching hospitals will receive $600 million in additional Indirect 
Medical Education (IME) payments over fiscal years 2000 and 2001. They 
will also benefit from other provisions that add money back to hospital 
outpatient departments, and which scale back cuts in Medicare 
disproportionate share payments to hospitals serving low-income 
patients. I will have more to say about teaching hospitals in a moment.
  Rural hospitals will be assisted by: an exemption from the new 
payment system for hospital outpatient departments; improvements in the 
Critical Access Hospital (CAH) program; a 5-year extension of the 
Medicare Dependent Hospital program; and an update in payments for Sole 
Community Hospitals (SCHs).
  Skilled Nursing Facilities--usually referred to as SNFs--would 
receive $2.1 billion of assistance over 10 years by: increasing 
payments for certain medically complex patients; permitting SNFs to 
switch immediately to a more favorable payment system; and excluding 
certain high cost items from consolidated billing.
  The caps on payments for rehabilitation therapy would be suspended 
for two years pending development of a better payment system; and 
hospice facilities, which are covered under Medicare part A, would 
receive temporary payment increases in fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
  Other provisions of the bill would: stabilize the formula used to 
calculate payment for physician services; lift time limits for state 
use of a fund for delinking of welfare and Medicaid eligibility; slow 
the phase-down of a Medicaid cost reimbursement to community health 
centers and rural health clinics; and provide adjustments to the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program--known as CHIP--which was enacted 
by the BBA of 1997


                       graduate medical education

  I would like to focus the remainder of my remarks on one particular 
aspect of this legislation--funding for graduate medical education. My 
State of New York is the home to 117 teaching hospitals--almost 10 
percent of our Nation's academic medical centers.
  The cumulative effect of several provisions in the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997 has produced an unintended financial burden on teaching 
hospitals. First, the BBA enacted a multi-year reduction in payments 
for the indirect costs associated with medical education, known as IME 
payments. Second, many teaching hospitals serve a large share of low-
income inpatients and have therefore been burdened by the BBA's cuts in 
disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments. Finally, many teaching 
hospitals are also subject to the BBA's reductions in hospital 
outpatient department reimbursements.
  I am pleased that the legislation we are voting on today, mitigates 
the fiscal pressures on teaching hospitals by adding back Indirect 
Medical Education (IME) funds in fiscal years 2000 and 2001. Teaching 
hospitals in New York will receive more than $150 million in additional 
IME payments over these 2 fiscal years.
  In addition, the bill's relief to disproportionate share hospitals--
those serving low-income patients--will assist the many teaching 
hospitals serving those populations. Finally, teaching hospitals across 
the Nation will benefit from the nearly $10 billion over 10 years in 
additional payments to hospital outpatient departments.
  I am concerned, however, about a change made in this bill to Direct 
Graduate Medical Education (DGME) payments. Medicare DGME payments 
compensate teaching hospitals for the costs directly related to the 
graduate training of physicians. Such DGME costs include residents' 
salaries and fringe benefits, the salaries and benefits of the faculty 
who supervise the residents, as well as other direct and overhead 
costs.
  The current payment methodology for DGME was developed in the 
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). Under 
COBRA, a hospital-specific per-resident amount was determined based on 
each individual hospital's 1984 Medicare allowable costs. This per-
resident amount took into account the extent to which teaching 
hospitals already had alternative sponsorship--such as from a 
university, medical school, or faculty practice plan--and locked 
payments at that level, so as not to replace outside funding sources. 
In determining current DGME payments, 1984 costs are updated for 
inflation and subjected to a formula based on each hospital's number of 
current residents (which is capped under BBA), and each hospital's 
proportion of inpatient Medicare beds.
  Consequently, there is wide variation in DGME payments from hospital 
to hospital. On average, New York has a higher average per-resident 
amount ($85,000/per resident) than the rest of the country ($67,000/per 
resident). However, DGME payments are hospital specific, not region 
specific; even within New York great variation exists. In New York DGME 
payments range from $156,000 per-resident to $38,000 per-resident. 
There are a number of factors which account for the variation in the 
hospital specific payments: the level of outside support from non-
hospital sources; the relationship to the medical school; and state or 
local government appropriations. In addition, residents' salaries, 
which are determined by geographic cost of living factors, further 
explains the variation.
  The version of this legislation that passed the House of 
Representatives included DGME language that would change the hospital 
specific per-resident formula to a payment based on a wage-adjusted 
national average. I am pleased to say that during negotiations on these 
provisions, I and the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Ways & 
Means Committee, Representative Rangel, with Chairman Roth's support 
were able to significantly narrow the scope of the House provision, 
thereby protecting many teaching hospitals in New York and elsewhere 
from abrupt changes in DGME payments. The scaling back of the House 
provision will provide time to address the complicated DGME system in a 
comprehensive and fair manner.
  The negotiations necessary to reach agreement on both the IME and 
DGME adjustments in this legislation clearly demonstrate the need for 
fundamental change in the way that medical education is financed in 
this country. What is needed is not year-to-year adjustments in 
Medicare funding but an explicit and dedicated source of funding for 
these institutions--a Medical Education Trust Fund as I have proposed 
this year and in the past.
  The legislation that I introduced would require that the public 
sector, through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and the private 
sector, through an assessment on health insurance premiums, contribute 
broad-based and fair financial support. Changing the funding source for 
graduate medical education from primarily Medicare funds to multiple 
payers would protect graduate medical education for the long term. 
Teaching hospitals are national treasures; they are the very best in 
the world. Yet today they find themselves in a precarious financial 
situation as market forces reshape the health care delivery system in 
the United States. The all-payer trust fund I have proposed would 
ensure that America continues to lead the world in the quality of its 
health care system.

[[Page S15054]]

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Conference 
Report to H.R. 1554, the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act. This is 
pro-consumer legislation which will promote much needed competition 
among television providers.
  This legislation allows satellite carriers to carry local television 
stations for the first time. Consumers now will have a choice between 
cable companies and satellite companies that offer similar programming. 
This competition should help lower costs and increase quality service 
for all consumers.
  In addition, this legislation contains many other pro-consumer 
provisions. For example, it protects consumers who are about to lose 
their distant signals and establishes a new consumer-friendly process 
to determine distant signal eligibility.
  This legislation also protects local broadcasters who provide a 
valuable service to our communities. Most importantly, local 
broadcasters should benefit from the legislation's must carry 
requirements. The members of the conference also agreed on a provision 
which would encourage satellite carriers and other entities to provide 
local into local network service in small and rural markets. However, 
this provision was taken out at the last minute. I strongly support 
fiscally sound ways of encouraging satellite carriers and other 
entities to provide local network television in small and rural 
markets.
  This legislation is a good step in promoting competition among 
satellite and cable providers. I urge support of this legislation, and 
I look forward to working early next year with other Senators regarding 
local into local network service for small and rural markets.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with renewed hope for the 
safety of our public roads. In 1998, 5,374 people were killed in truck-
related crashes. In my State there is a strong public sense of alarm 
about this safety problem. And as trucks get bigger and heavier and the 
volume of trucks on our roads increases, the General Accounting Office 
(GAO) predicts that by the year 2000, over 6,000 people will be killed 
every year as a result of truck-related crashes. This prediction comes 
at a time when the Office of Motor Carriers (OMC)--the federal agency 
charged with overseeing truck safety--has failed in its duties to 
protect the American public. The Department of Transportation Inspector 
General, the National Transportation Safety Board, the GAO and members 
of this Congress have all brought to light and documented the many 
inadequacies of this broken agency.
  I commend the leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee for pursuing 
this very important issue. H.R. 3419, The Motor Carrier Safety 
Improvement Act of 1999, addresses the numerous failings of the Office 
of Motor Carriers by strengthening federal motor carrier safety 
programs, and by creating a new Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration. Although H.R. 3419 takes a large step in the right 
direction, federal truck safety oversight needs a new look, with a 
focus dedicated to reducing truck-related fatalities and injuries, and 
not simply a new agency with new letterhead.
  The Inspector General in his April 1999 report showed that the OMC 
has not maintained an ``arm's length'' relationship between itself and 
the industry it regulates. In fact, the report suggests OMC has 
developed too close a relationship with the industry it must regulate. 
This has limited OMC in taking the tough regulatory and enforcement 
actions that the accident data suggests are needed to protect public 
safety. One example of this problem is that the OMC has consistently 
awarded research contracts to the regulated industry to perform some of 
the most critical, and highly sensitive research on future rulemakings 
governing the industry. This practice appears questionable. In order to 
protect the American public, an independent relationship should be 
established by the new Federal Motor Carrier Administration.
  H.R. 3419 provides us with an opportunity for real progress in 
improving truck safety, but only if the new Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration and its leaders commit to a new culture which 
truly holds safety as the highest priority. This Congress and the 
Department of Transportation must restore the American public's trust 
in federal motor carrier safety programs, and take action that produces 
safer results.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have some comments on issues raised by 
the conference report to the Interior appropriations bill.
  On the matter of contract support costs for Bureau of Indian Affairs 
and Indian Health Service programs operated by Native organizations 
under the provisions of P.L. 93-638, I am pleased that we have been 
able to add $10 million to BIA funding and $25 million to IHS funding 
over fiscal year 1999 levels to support additional payments of contract 
support costs for these programs. This new funding will allow BIA and 
IHS to bring existing programs' contract support cost payments closer 
to the full amount of negotiated support and will allow a limited 
number of new and expanded programs in both agencies to go forward.
  However, I am concerned that the Tribes have been operating, in the 
distribution of contract support costs, under the assumption that 
contract support costs are an entitlement under the law. The House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations have taken exception to that 
interpretation and have tried to persuade the IHS to change its 
allocation methodology and to set reasonable limits on the number and 
size of new and expanded contracts it executes consonant with resources 
made available by Congress for the payment of contract support costs. 
The Federal Circuits Court of Appeals in its October 27, 1999 decision 
in Babbitt v. Oglala Sioux Tribal Public Safety Department (1999 WL 
974155 (Fed. Cir.)) has now affirmed that contract support costs are 
not an entitlement, but rather are subject to appropriations. Contract 
support cases raising similar legal issues are pending in the 10th 
Circuit Court of Appeals and in various Federal district courts around 
the country. The Federal circuit's decision was correct both in its 
holding and in its reasoning and should serve as precedent for other 
pending cases. To assume that Congress would create a system in which 
Tribes receive the majority of their contract support costs through 
funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service or Bureau of Indian 
Affairs and which requires Tribes to seek the balance in court through 
the claims and judgment fund turns logic on its ear. ``Subject to 
appropriations'' means what it says.
  The Indian Health Service has made improvements to its distribution 
methodology in fiscal year 1999 but continues to distribute funds at 
varying rates for different contracts, compacts and annual funding 
agreements. More disturbing, the current IHS system pays contractors 
with high overhead costs (relative to program costs) at the same 
percentage rate as it pays contractors with low overhead rates, 
rewarding inefficient operators and creating an incentive to maximize 
overhead costs.
  The bill allows the funding in fiscal year 2000 of a limited number 
of new and expanded contracts through the Indian Self Determination 
(ISD) fund of $10 million. It is expected that, once the contract 
support cost total (paid at an average rate not to fall above or below 
the average rate of payment of contract support costs to existing 
contractors in fiscal year 2000) for new and expanded programs has 
reached $10 million, IHS will not execute any further new or expanded 
contracts until Congress has provided funds specifically earmarked for 
that purpose. Existing IHS policy does not permit reduction of existing 
service providers' funding in order to fund new entrants into the 
system. This bill does not modify that policy. If funds remain in the 
ISD fund after all new entrants have been accommodated, those funds 
should be distributed equitably across existing programs, with 
particular emphasis on the most underfunded.
  The Indian Health Service should include as part of its fiscal year 
2001 budget request a detailed cost estimate for new and expanded 
contracts so that Congress will be aware of anticipated need when it 
establishes a funding level for an ISD account in fiscal year 2001. 
Congress and the courts have made it plain that IHS can no longer enter 
into new and expanded contracts without regard to the level of funding 
provided for that purpose by Congress. Congress will be aided in its 
efforts to establish

[[Page S15055]]

a reasonable level of support for new and expanded contracts if the IHS 
provides accurate estimates of anticipated need as part of the budget 
process.

  The authorizing committees in the Senate and House are encouraged, in 
consultation with the Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs and Tribal organizations, to develop timely proposals to 
address the longer term issues surrounding contract support costs, 
including the apparent contradiction between the self-determination 
principles laid out in P.L. 93-638 and the legal requirement that 
contract support costs are subject to appropriations.
  Our committees encourage the transition of employees from Federal to 
Tribal employment as part of self-determination contracts and self-
governance compacts and strongly believe that the IHS should not 
provide disincentives for such transfers. We have noted that each year 
start-up costs from new and expanded contracts for the previous year 
are returned to the base for distribution to other contracts. These 
funds, currently estimated at $4.5 million, will be available in fiscal 
year 2000. With my support, the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations will soon be sending a letter to the IHS requesting that 
it set aside a portion of base contract support funds associated with 
prior year start up costs for use as a transition fund for costs 
associated with employees who elect to transfer from Federal employment 
to Tribal employment during the period after which contract support 
costs for individual contracts have been determined for that year. To 
the extent set aside funds are not needed for employee transition, they 
should be distributed equitably among existing contractors, with 
emphasis on the most underfunded contracts.
  In the last fiscal year and the one we are funding now, we will have 
added a total of $60 million in new contract support cost funding to 
the IHS budget. We know that these funds are critical to the success of 
Indian-operated health programs and that shortfalls still remain. 
However, in the current environment of caps on discretionary spending, 
we must develop policies that support the self-determination principles 
embodied in P.L. 93-638 while taking into account the fiscal realities 
of limits on funding for these programs. I look forward to receiving 
recommendations from the authorizing committees, the IHS and BIA, and 
tribal organizations which will address these issues in time for the 
committees' consideration during the fiscal year 2001 appropriations 
cycle.
  Mr. President, the conference report also includes a provision to 
authorize the investment of Exxon Valdez oil spill--or EVOS--settlement 
funds outside of the Treasury. This section is the exact language of 
legislation, S. 711, reported by the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee earlier this year, and represents an accord struck 
among many interests. The details of this accord are discussed more 
fully in the committee report (Senate Rpt. 106-124) accompanying S. 
711. These interests include Koniag, a native regional corporation with 
a great interest in seeing that their native lands are valued at the 
level they feel appropriate given their prominence in the oil spill 
zone.
  The continuing availability of EVOS funds for habitat conservation 
raises another important issue I hope can be resolved in the coming 
months. It regards revenue sharing payments arising from oil spill area 
acquisitions. New additions to refuge lands, such as those from EVOS 
settlement land acquisitions, qualify adjacent communities to increased 
Federal payments in lieu of taxes under the Revenue Sharing Act of 
1935.
  In 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to purchase from 
Old Harbor, Akiok-Kaguyak and Koniag Native corporations over 160,000 
acres of land within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. These lands 
were acquired using funds derived from the consent decree in settling 
the United States' and State of Alaska's civil claims against Exxon, 
Inc. for damages caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989.
  The Exxon Valdez Trustee Council, which was formed to implement the 
consent decree, adopted its restoration plan in 1994 with habitat 
protection as a key component of the plan to recover the damages caused 
by the oil spill. The trustee council subsequently solicited interest 
from land owners throughout the spill zone and ranked the habitat based 
on its restoration value for the species and services injured by the 
spill. The council, working through State and Federal land managing 
agencies, commissioned land appraisals and authorized negotiations with 
land owners.
  Negotiated agreements with land owners, resulting in significant 
habitat acquisitions, exceeded the appraisals approved by Federal and 
State appraisers. The trustee council in its resolutions authorizing 
these acquisitions with settlement funds made several findings, I'm 
advised that these findings included the following:

       Biologists, scientists and other resource specialists agree 
     that, in their best professional judgment, protection of 
     habitat in the spill area to levels above and beyond that 
     provided by existing laws and regulations will likely have a 
     beneficial effect on recovery of injured resources and lost 
     or diminished services provided by these resources.
       There has been widespread public support for the 
     acquisition of these lands, locally, within the spill zone 
     and nationally.
       It is ordinarily the Federal Government's practice to pay 
     fair market value for the lands it acquires. However, due to 
     the unique circumstances of this proposed acquisition, 
     including the land's exceptional habitat for purposes of 
     promoting recovery of natural resources injured by EVOS and 
     the need to acquire it promptly to prevent degradation of the 
     habitat, the trustee council believes it is appropriate in 
     this case to pay more than fair market value for these 
     particular parcels.
       This offer is a reasonable price given the significant 
     natural resource and service values protected; the scope and 
     pervasiveness of the EVOS environmental disaster and the need 
     for protection of ecosystems . . .

  The trustee council-commissioned appraisals--which were performed in 
accordance with Federal regulations--for the three large parcels 
acquired within Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge are estimates of fair 
market value. However, they varied substantially from the landowners' 
appraisals and what they believe to be their fair market value. The 
land owners rejected the initial offers made by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service to purchase the lands based on the trustee council's 
commissioned appraisals.
  The estimates of fair market value based on the Federal appraisals 
are below the prices actually paid for the various parcels of land, and 
they do not consider the purchase price paid in these and other 
governmental acquisitions in Alaska. The trustee council, through its 
public process, difficult negotiations and subsequent findings 
determined that the price paid for the lands was ``a reasonable price'' 
for a variety of reasons including past Federal large-scale 
acquisitions.
  The acquisition in fee of these three large parcels within Kodiak NWR 
now requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make payments in 
lieu of taxes to the Kodiak Island borough in accordance with the 
Revenue Sharing Act of 1935. The act directs the agency to make such 
payments based on the fair market value of acquired lands.
  The service is currently using the federally approved appraisals 
estimating fair market value of these three large parcels as the basis 
for computing the revenue sharing payment to the borough. The borough 
has rightly challenged the Service's determination of fair market value 
based on the unique circumstances of these acquisitions and the 
findings made by the trustee council in approving funds for these 
acquisitions.

  A plain reading of the Revenue Sharing Act (which authorizes the 
Secretary of the Interior to make refuge revenue sharing payments) 
requires that the determinations of fair market value be made in a 
manner that ``The Secretary considers to be equitable and in the public 
interest.'' Clearly, the public interest associated with these unique 
acquisitions has been well documented in the findings of the trustee 
council.
  The Revenue Sharing Act imposes no legal impediment for the Secretary 
to make a determination of fair market value that incorporates the 
unique circumstances of these acquisitions and the specific findings 
and actions taken by the trustee council. Thus, I urge the Secretary to 
review the Kodiak Island Borough's appeal to the Service's 
determinations for making revenue sharing payments and do what is fair 
and equitable as called for by the act.

[[Page S15056]]

  These are unique circumstances that exist nowhere else in the United 
States and are limited to Alaska to lands acquired in the Exxon Valdez 
spill zone with settlement funds. Thus, there should be no consequences 
for how revenue sharing payments are computed for service acquired 
lands in other parts of Alaska or throughout the rest of the country.
  At this opportunity, upon the passage of another year's funding for 
the Federal and Indian land management agencies, I must call to the 
attention of my colleagues and to the attention of the President of the 
United States, an issue that troubles me deeply. Over the years, our 
Government has made commitments to Native Americans which it has not 
kept. Many Americans thought that practice ended with the new, more 
enlightened self-determination approach to Indian policy. But as one of 
Alaska's Representatives in the Senate, members of the President's 
staff made personal promises to me just last fall on behalf of the 
Native people of the Chugach region which have not been kept.
  In 1971 Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
(ANCSA). The act cleared the way for Alaska Native people, including 
the Chugach Natives, to receive title to a small portion of their 
traditional lands as settlement of their aboriginal land claims. The 
act also cleared the way for the addition of millions of acres to our 
national parks, wildlife refuges forests, and wilderness areas. 
Allowing Native people to develop their lands freed them from economic 
bondage to the Federal Government. No longer would they have to depend 
exclusively on the benevolence of the Federal Government for hand-outs. 
They could create their own jobs, generate their own income, and 
determine their own destiny. But only if they had access to their 
lands.
  Both the administration and the Congress recognized the lands would 
be virtually valueless if there was no way to get to them. The Claims 
Act recognized that Native lands were to be used for both traditional 
and economic development purposes. Alaska Natives were guaranteed a 
right of access, under law, to their lands across the vast new parks, 
refuges, and forests that would be created.
  In 1971 and again in 1982, under the terms of the Chugach Native Inc. 
settlement agreement, the Federal Government made a solemn vow to 
ensure the Chugach people had access to their aboriginal lands. Now a 
quarter of a century later, that commitment has not been fulfilled. 
Many of the Native leaders who worked with me to achieve the landmark 
Native Land Claims Settlement Act have died after waiting for decades 
without seeing that promise honored.
  Last year, Congressman Don Young, Chairman of the House Resources 
Committee, added a provision to the House Interior Appropriations bill 
that required, by a date certain, the Federal Government to live up to 
the access promises it made to the Chugach Natives decades ago. In the 
conference last fall on the Omnibus appropriations bill, 
the administration spoke passionately and repeatedly against the 
provision.

  Why? They fully admitted the obligation to grant an access easement 
exists. They acknowledged further that access delayed is access denied 
and that further delays were harmful to the Chugach people. They 
opposed the provision on the grounds that it was not necessary since 
they were going to move with all due haste to finalize the easement 
before the end of 1998. Katie McGinty, then head of the President's 
Council on Environmental Quality sat across from me, looked me in the 
eye, and promised me they would fulfill this long overdue promise 
before the end of the year.
  She even offered to issue a ``Presidential Proclamation'' promising 
once again to do what had already been promised and promised and 
promised. My staff worked with OMB on the content of such a 
proclamation, but I told them it would not be necessary. I would take 
her at her word and believed the administration would live up to the 
personal commitment she made to me.
  Here we are a year later, Chugach still has not received its 
easement. Ms. McGinty is gone, but her commitment on behalf of this 
administration remains. It is now the responsibility of others to 
ensure the promises she made to me and to Alaska's Native people are 
kept.
  Congressman Young's House Resources Committee has reported a bill, 
H.R. 2547, to address this issue legislatively, in the hope of forcing 
the administration to do what it has promised to do. Senator Murkowski 
has been tireless in his efforts to get the Federal Government to live 
up to the promises made to Alaskans concerning access to our State and 
Native lands. I support those efforts.
  But I take the time today to say clearly to this administration that 
the promises made by our Government to the Chugach people for access to 
their lands--and to me personally as their Representative--must be 
honored. Make no mistake, if the promises made to me by officials in 
this administration last fall are not lived up to soon, if they oppose 
the efforts of Congressman Young and Senator Murkowski on this issue, 
if they continue to obfuscate and ``slow roll'' this commitment, it 
will be clear to all that this administration does not perceive the 
true meaning of Robert Service's memorable phrase: ``A promise made is 
a debt unpaid''!
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased the Senate is 
considering the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999, to restore some 
of the unanticipated cuts in Medicare and Medicaid made in 1997 and I 
commend the Senate leadership, the Finance Committee, Senators Roth and 
Moynihan, and the Administration for their hard work in developing this 
bill. The bill includes several important provisions.
  The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 has been one of several factors 
threatening the overall stability of the health care system in 
California, which many believe to be on the verge of collapse. Today I 
will focus on eight provisions of the bill which are particularly 
important to California.


                california's health care system eroding

  During the past few months, I have met with many California health 
care leaders who have convinced me that the Medicare and Medicaid cuts 
contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have undermined the 
financial stability of California's health care system. In the past 6 
months, I have urged President Clinton, Secretary Shalala, and Senators 
Roth and Moynihan to join me in addressing the impact the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997 is having on our nation's health care system.
  California's health care system, in the words of a November 15th Wall 
Street Journal article, is a ``chaotic and discombobulated 
environment.'' It is stretched to the limit:
  Thirty-seven California hospitals have closed since 1996, and up to 
15 percent more may close by 2005.
  By 2002, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 will result in cuts of $5.2 
billion for California hospitals. For California's two largest Catholic 
health systems, Catholic Healthcare West and St. Joseph's Health 
System, the loss amounts to over $842 million.
  Over half of my state's hospitals lose money on hospital operations 
annually.
  Hospitals have laid off staff.
  California physician groups are failing at the rate of one a week, 
with 115 bankruptcies or closures since 1996.
  Academic medical centers, which incur added costs unique to their 
mission, are facing margins reduced to zero and below.
  The University of California's five medical centers will lose $225 
million.
  California hospitals are contending with the impact of BBA while 
facing a projected margin of negative 7.58 percent by 2002, compared to 
the national rate of negative 4 percent.
  For rural California hospitals, because 40 percent of patients 
receive Medicare and 20 percent receive Medicaid, 69 percent lost money 
in 1998, according to the California Health Care Association.
  In short, restoring Medicare cuts is crucial to stabilizing 
California's health delivery system.


                               Hospitals

  This bill contains several provisions that will help stabilize 
California's hospitals by restoring $400 million, according to 
preliminary estimates of the California Health Care Association. This 
bill clarifies that Congress' intent was not to impose a 5.7 percent 
cut in outpatient services, which restores $137

[[Page S15057]]

million to California, according to preliminary estimates by the 
California Health Care Association. Cancer hospitals are held harmless 
permanently. Since Medicare is a major payer for hospital care, 
improving payment rates and methods is a significant way to stop 
further closures and stabilize the system.


                          safety net hospitals

  I want to thank the Finance Committee and the Administration for 
including a provision maintaining adequate Medicaid payments to 
disproportionate share hospitals. California has a disproportionate 
burden of uncompensated care. We have one of the highest uninsured 
rates in the country at 24 percent, while the national rate is 17 
percent. California has the fourth highest uninsured rate in the 
country, a rate that has risen over the last 5 years and now totals 
over seven million people. As a result of Medicaid reductions in the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, California's Medicaid disproportionate 
share hospital program could lose more than $200 million by 2002, 
representing a 20 percent reduction in the program, if what is know as 
the ``transition rule'' for California's public hospitals is not 
extended. At my urging, this bill continues for California only the 
``transition rule'' allowing California DSH hospitals to calculate 
Medicaid payments at 175 percent of unreimbursed costs. Under this 
provision, tens of millions of dollars will be restored to California 
hospitals.
  Public hospitals carry a disproportionate share of caring for the 
poor and uninsured. The uninsured often choose public hospitals and 
frequently wait until their illnesses are exacerbated when they come to 
the emergency room, making their care even more costly. Without this 
transition rule, for example, Kern Medical Center, in Bakersfield, 
would lose $8 million. Alameda County, would lose $14 million.
  Forty percent of all California uninsured hospital patients were 
treated at public hospitals in 1998, up from 32 percent in 1993. The 
uninsured as a share of all discharges for public hospitals grew from 
22 percent in 1993 to 29 percent in 1998. While overall public hospital 
discharges declined from 1993 to 1999 by 15 percent, discharges for 
uninsured patients increased by 11 percent. Large numbers of uninsured 
add huge uncompensated costs to our public hospitals.


                       medicaid community clinics

  Another important provision is the Medicaid payment method for 
community health clinics. Extending the phase out of cost-based 
reimbursement for community health clinics over four years will help 
alleviate the financial burden associated with the more expedited 
phase-out proposed under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
  BBA 1997 allowed state Medicaid programs to phase-out the previous 
requirement that clinics be paid on the basis of cost. The phase-out 
was to occur over 5 years. Under the phase-out, health centers could 
lose as much as $1.1 billion in Medicaid revenues. California health 
clinics' could have lost $969 million annually. To halt further 
decreases in payments to community health, an extended phase-out of 
cost-based reimbursement has been included in the bill which allows 
clinics in fiscal year 2000 to be reimbursed at 95 percent and by 2003 
at 90 percent of costs.
  California has over 7 million uninsured, and 306 federally qualified 
health centers and 218 rural health clinics that rely on federal 
funding so that they can provide vital health services to some of the 
state's sickest and poorest. Over 80 of California's clinics are 
located in underserved areas and provide primary and preventive 
services to 10 percent of the uninsured people in the state. According 
to the federal Bureau of Primary Health Care's Uniform Data System, 42 
percent of California community health center patients are children, 52 
percent are adults ages 21-64, and 6 percent are the elderly.


                              home health

  I am also pleased that the bill addresses home health care in this 
bill. For example, the provision which delays the 15 percent reduction 
in payment for one year will enable home health providers to transition 
more smoothly and better maintain continuity of services to patients. 
California will gain $162 million over 5 years as a result of all the 
home health provisions included in the bill, according to preliminary 
estimates by the California Association of Health Services at Home.
  While the intent of the BBA 1997 law was to restrain the growth of 
Medicare home health expenditures, it is now anticipated that home 
health expenditures in fiscal year 2000 will be lower than they were 
projected in 1997. CBO estimated that BBA 1997 would cut $16 billion 
over 5 years. Recent estimates show cuts of $48 billion over 5 years, 
which is three times more than originally expected. HCFA's 1998 data 
shows that total Medicare payments to home health agencies declined 
between 1997 and 1998 by 33 percent; reimbursements dropped from $1.1 
billion to $745 million.
  California home health providers have suffered immeasurably since 
passage of the BBA. In California, 230 home health agencies have closed 
since 1997, which is 25 percent of all state licensed agencies, largely 
due to the effects of BBA, according to the California Association for 
Health Services at Home. For example, the home health agency at the San 
Gabriel Valley Medical Center, which was providing nearly 10,000 
patient visits per year, was forced to close this year due in part to 
the effects of the BBA. Additionally, between 1997-1998 there has been 
a 12 percent decrease in the number of patients served nationally and a 
35 percent decrease in the number of home health visits nationally. As 
the population ages and families are more dispersed, it is especially 
important to help people stay in their own homes.


                           medical education

  I support the provisions included in the bill which alleviate 
reductions in graduate medical education and begin to restore equity in 
payment levels. Freezing cuts in the indirect medical education (IME) 
payment at the current level of 6.5 percent for fiscal year 2000, 6.25 
percent in 2001, and 5.5 percent in 2002 and thereafter could help 
stabilize teaching hospitals and prevent a loss of about $3 billion for 
teaching hospitals nationwide over five years. For example, freezing 
indirect medical education payment rates represents $5 million to 
UCLA's teaching hospital. California's teaching hospitals as a whole 
will receive approximately $52 million because of this freeze, 
according to preliminary estimates by the California Health Care 
Association.
  The bill also takes a good first step to correct Medicare's direct 
medical education (DME) formula, a geographic disparity in payments, 
that has paid California teaching hospitals far less than teaching 
hospitals in the Northeast so that California's teaching hospitals can 
begin to receive payments for medical residents closer to those of 
their counterparts in other states. Currently, California teaching 
hospitals receive 40% less in Medicare payments for medical education 
than similar New York institutions. The DME provision in this bill 
begins to reform a longstanding inequity in the formula that has 
unfairly compensated medical education in California. California's 
teaching hospitals will benefit from this provision by approximately 
$52 million over five years, according to the California Health Care 
Association.
  Many of the nation's teaching hospitals, including UCLA in 
California, are premier research and clinical care facilities and will 
be forced to close down beds and lower the quality of care they provide 
if reductions in indirect medical education (IME) payments continues. 
According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, 30 percent 
of all teaching hospitals nationwide are now operating in the red, and 
by 2002, 50 percent of all teaching hospitals will be losing money 
without this bill.
  Academic medical centers deserve protection because they have 
multiple responsibilities--teaching, research, and patient care--which 
cause them to incur costs unique to such facilities. There are 400 
teaching hospitals across the country. Teaching hospitals only account 
for 5.5 percent of the nation's 5,000 hospitals but they house 40 
percent of all neonatal intensive care units, 53 percent of pediatric 
intensive care units, and 70 percent of all burn units. Our nation's 
teaching hospitals are providing care to some of the nation's sickest 
patients.
  Academic medical centers also provide care to a disproportionate 
share of the uninsured and underinsured. They

[[Page S15058]]

provide 44 percent of all care for the poor. The University of 
California's academic medical centers are the second largest safety net 
for a state that has the fourth highest uninsured rate in the country.
  Medicaid disproportionate share payments to hospitals that serve the 
impoverished were also reduced five percent over five years as a result 
of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Teaching hospitals receive two-
thirds of all Medicaid disproportionate share payments, worth $4.5 
billion annually.
  In California, graduate medical education (GME) funding helps support 
108 hospitals that train more than 6,700 residents over three-to-five 
year periods. In 1997, the direct medical education funding in 
California totaled $95 million. Dr. Gerald Levey, the Medical Provost 
at the University of California Los Angeles wrote that:

       In the 5\1/2\ years I have been in my position at UCLA, my 
     colleagues and I have implemented virtually every conceivable 
     cost-cutting measure to keep us financially strong in order 
     to compete in the brutal managed care market and maintain our 
     academic mission of research and teaching. Coming on the 
     heels of these measures, the Balanced Budget Act of 197 has 
     served to literally ``break the camel's back.''

Teaching hospitals' ability to serve their communities, advance 
research, and train physicians will be compromised if we do not pass 
this bill.


                       adequately paying doctors

  I also thank the Finance Committee and Administration for addressing 
the issue of the ``sustainable growth rate'' factor in payments to 
physicians under Medicare. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 changed how 
Medicare physician payment rates are updated every year, including 
creating the new sustainable growth rate factor. In the first two years 
of using the sustainable growth rate, it appears that errors in its 
calculations were made because projections were used to determine the 
rate rather than actual data. As a result of these errors, physicians 
are caring for one million more patients than Medicare anticipated, at 
a cost of $3 billion according to the American Medical Association.
  California's doctors have made a compelling case that errors in its 
estimates have caused unintended reductions in payments to physicians. 
The bill would require HCFA to use actual data beginning in 2001 to 
calculate payments instead of projections in order to stabilize 
payments to physicians who treat Medicare patients. While it does not 
go far enough, it is a step in the right direction towards decreasing 
fluctuations in physician payments from year to year.


                           retaining medicaid

  Another provision included in this bill that is of great importance 
to California is removing the December 21, 1999 expiration date for the 
$500 million Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Fund. The 
expiration date for these funds must be repealed so that states like 
California can continue to use TANF funds to enroll low-income children 
and adults in Medicaid and CHIP. As part of the 1996 welfare reform, 
Medicaid was ``de-linked'' from cash assistance, and states were given 
increased matching federal funds for administering a new Medicaid 
family coverage category.
  Of the $500 million provided, as of July 1999, states have only spent 
10 percent. Unless federal law is changed very soon, 34 states, 
including California, will lose these funds by the end of this year 
because under the law, states have to spend the funds within the first 
12 calendar quarters that their TANF programs are in effect. Thus, 
December 31, 1999, California will lose access to the $78 million 
remaining of the $84 million allocated if we do not act. Fifteen other 
states will lose access to their remaining funds in December as well. 
On September 30, 1999, sixteen states lost access their funds due to 
these time limits.
  We cannot let these funds lapse in California because we need to 
enroll more working, low-income people in Medicaid and children in CHIP 
and ensure that more Californians have access to health services.
  I thank the Committee and Administration for including this 
provision.


                      medicare managed care reform

  I am pleased with the five-year moratorium placed on NCFA's use of 
health status risk adjuster for payments to managed care plans included 
in the bill. HCFA has been using hospitalizations as a measure of 
health, which is not only an incomplete measure of health but also 
unfairly penalizes states like California that historically have had a 
heavy penetration of managed care, lower hospital admissions rates and 
shorter hospital lengths of stay. The way Medicare pays managed care 
plans deserves a thorough review to determine if both the payment 
methodology and the payment rats are appropriate. This moratorium could 
give us time to conduct a review as well as give HCFA time to develop a 
better measure of health. Under this provision, $130 million over five 
years will be restored so that managed care plans can pay providers 
more adequately, according to preliminary estimates by the California 
Health Care Association.


              environment post-balanced budget act of 1997

  Circumstances have changed since 1997 when we passed the Balanced 
Budget Act. We have eliminated the federal deficit. Because we have a 
robust economy, lower inflation, higher GDO growth and lower 
unemployment, we also have lowered Medicare spending growth more than 
anticipated. This climate provides us an opportunity to revisit the 
reductions made by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and to strengthen 
the stability of health care services, a system that in my state is on 
the verge of unraveling.
  We should not end this session without passing this bill. Without it, 
we could have a more severe health care crisis on our hands, especially 
in my state. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today concludes a grueling debate on the 
state of the dairy industry. Though the process was long and often 
times quite confusing, I think the Senate has come to an agreement on a 
package that will prove to be beneficial to most interested parties at 
this time.
  Mr. President, I must say this process would not have been possible 
without the diligent work of one of my former staffers, Congressman 
Chip Pickering. I have always said ``once a Lott staffer, always a Lott 
staffer.'' Although Chip has moved on to represent the people of the 
third district of Mississippi, he continues to constantly be of great 
help to me, and to always keep the best interest of the entire state of 
Mississippi at heart.
  Chip believes that Option 1A is absolutely essential for allowing 
most dairies in Mississippi and outside the upper Midwest to remain in 
business, and he worked with me to see that this legislation was put 
into law. He organized House members from across the country to fight 
in order to see that the crucial dairy language we needed became law 
this year.
  Chip realizes Option 1A is the only way the interests of 
Mississippi's dairy farmers can be protected. Having grown up working 
on his family's dairy farm, meeting with dairy farmers across 
Mississippi, and working with Mississippi Farm Bureau, Chip knows the 
importance of this legislation to the survival of dairy farms and to 
the continued fresh supply of milk for all Mississippians. I thank 
Congressman Pickering for his relentless efforts on behalf of 
Mississippi dairy farmers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the conference report to accompany H.R. 3194.
  The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon (Mr. Smith) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) 
is absent attending a funeral.
  The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 374 Leg.]

                                YEAS--74

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback

[[Page S15059]]


     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--24

     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Grams
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Kohl
     Levin
     McCain
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Murray
     Smith (OR)
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to table was agreed to.


           colloquy between senator warner and senator helms

  Mr. WARNER. I rise to address a number of aspects of the State 
Department Authorization Act, which has been included in the final 
omnibus budget package of legislation. This bill contains a number of 
provisions that, directly and indirectly, affect the jurisdiction of 
the Armed Services Committee, and I am very concerned by the fact that 
this major bill was included with virtually no consultation with our 
committee. I believe that the process works better when the normal 
legislative procedures are followed.
  I would like to raise a specific issue with the distinguished 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Section 1134 of the State 
Department Authorization Act prohibits Executive Branch agencies from 
withholding information regarding nonproliferation matters, as set 
forth in section 602(c) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, 
from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House International 
Relations Committee, including information in special access programs.
  I am aware that problems with the dissemination of nonproliferation 
information have arisen in the past. DOD has taken steps to correct 
these problems and has established a policy that special access 
programs will not include nonproliferation information, as defined in 
section 602(c) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978. Based on 
my review of DOD's special access programs, I believe that the 
Department of Defense does not now have special access programs which 
include such nonproliferation information. I have been assured that, in 
the future, DOD will provide nonproliferation information to the 
appropriate committees of Congress.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank my colleague, the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee. I too have been assured by the Department that it will not 
use special access program status to deny the Foreign Relations 
Committee access to the nonproliferation information required by 
section 602(c).
  Mr. WARNER. I am concerned that some might interpret section 1134 of 
the State Department Authorization Act as requiring expanded access to 
sensitive DOD intelligence sources and methods, as contrasted with 
nonproliferation information itself. I believe that section 1134 would 
not require DOD to change its current procedures for protecting such 
sensitive sources and methods. Is this also the understanding of the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee?
  Mr. HELMS. I believe that is correct. If the Department's assurances 
are accurate, then this provision would not modify DOD's current 
policies regarding the protection of sensitive sources and methods. The 
Foreign Relations Committee has no intention of seeking expanded access 
to such sources and methods, or to DOD special access programs, so long 
as DOD lives up to its reporting obligations under existing law. DOD's 
policy of not handling nonproliferation information within special 
access channels certainly provides a significant reassurance in that 
regard. Our concern is only to ensure that DOD policy regarding special 
access programs or intelligence sources and methods not be seen as 
obviating its long-standing legal obligations to inform appropriate 
committees of Congress.
  Mr. WARNER. That is the case now, and I am pleased that DOD has 
assured both of us that the prerogatives of the Foreign Relations 
Committee will be protected. I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
  Mr. HELMS. I appreciate these assurances and thank my colleague, the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. SHELBY. I am concerned with section 1134 which requires the DCI 
to provide certain information, including information contained in 
special access programs, to the chairman and ranking member of the 
Foreign Relations Committees. I note that this language on special 
access programs was added after the bill was passed by the Senate. I 
wish to clarify that the legislative intent of this provision does not 
wish to clarify that the legislative intent of this provision does not 
include expanded information relating to intelligence operational 
activities or sensitive sources and methods.
  I ask for the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee's 
clarification regarding the companion section in the State Department 
Authorization bill, section 1131. Am I correct in understanding that 
this provision does not levy the same requirement upon the Director of 
Central Intelligence that is required of the Secretaries of Defense, 
State, and Commerce?
  Mr. HELMS. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Unlike the other 
Secretaries you have mentioned, the Director of Central Intelligence is 
required only to disclose information covered under subparagraph (B). 
That information relates to significant proliferation activities of 
foreign nations. The Director is exempt from reporting information 
under subparagraph (A) and (B) which relates to the agency's 
operational activities. The Foreign Relations Committee understands 
that intelligence operations fall within the jurisdiction of the 
Intelligence Committee, and therefore did not include such activities 
in this reporting requirement.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Chairman for that explanation and yield the 
floor. I look forward to fully reviewing those provisions in the 
Intelligence Committee next year.

                          ____________________