[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 28, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1815-S1826]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENT ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. THOMAS:
  S. 2300. A bill to amend the Mineral Leasing Act to increase the 
maximum acreage of Federal leases for coal that may be held by an 
entity in any one State; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


                  coal market competition act of 2000

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coal Market 
Competition Act of 2000. The legislation would amend the Mineral 
Leasing Act to increase the acreage of coal leases. Companies need this 
assurance as they plan and finance their operations into the future. 
Now, more than ever, we need to diversify our Nation's resources. The 
current oil prices are a daily reminder of what occurs when we allow 
this country to be too dependent on foreign resources. It is time to 
focus on domestic energy production and this legislation will 
facilitate development of one of our Nation's abundant natural 
resources, coal.
  Most of the coal produced in our Nation comes from mines west of the 
Mississippi River and the vast majority of that coal is mined in 
western states with significant federal ownership of both the surface 
and mineral estates. In fact, my state of Wyoming is home to 11 of the 
top 12 coal mines based on tonnage. We produced approximately one third 
of the total U.S. coal in 1999, with production exceeding 330 million 
tons last year. Not surprisingly Wyoming is also the leader in federal 
coal lease acreage with approximately 145,000 federal acres under lease 
to 20 companies.
  The current federal coal lease limitation under the Mineral Leasing 
Act of 1920 is 46,080 acres per state. An amendment of the Mineral 
Leasing Act in 1976 maintained the per-state limit and added a 100,000-
acre nationwide limit for any one company. The state coal lease limit 
has not been changed for 36 years. Coal, sodium, phosphate and oil and 
gas were all assigned identical or similar per state lease acreage 
limitations in the 1926 amendments to the MLA (2,560 acres per state 
for sodium, coal and phosphate, 2,560 acres per geologic structure and 
7,680 acres per state for oil and gas). The acreage limitation for each 
of these minerals was increased in the 1946 and 1948 MLA amendments 
(coal, sodium and phosphate to 5,120 per state in 1948; oil and gas to 
15,360 acres per state in 1946). The per state acreage limitation for 
oil and gas leases was increased twice more (to 46,080 acres in 1957 
and 246,080 acres in 1960) and the per state acreage ceiling for coal 
(and phosphate) leases was increased once more to 46,080 acres (and 
20,480 acres for phosphate) in 1964. In my view, it is time to address 
the coal acreage limitations both on a state and national level.
  The cap on coal needs to be raised to allow producers to remain 
competitive in the world-wide market. In Wyoming, the coal mine sizes 
will need to increase in order to maintain economic competitiveness. 
Our coal industry has grown and prospered because its economic 
competitiveness allowed Wyoming to be the location of choice for new 
low-sulfur coal capacity to serve much of the world. The scale of 
mining operations is much larger now.
  In order for this competitiveness to continue, we must raise the 
acreage cap to alleviate concern from several companies in both Wyoming 
and Utah about the effect of the limitation on their planning and 
production abilities. Larger lease acreage areas are required to 
justify the significant capital investment necessary for mine 
expansion. Under current leasing operations, the penalty for violation 
of the acreage limitation is lease cancellation. It is essential during 
a time like now--when oil prices are soaring--that we diversify and 
develop our Nation's energy sources rather than be dependent on foreign 
sources. Expanding lease acreage will allow coal to be competitive and 
it is essential we have choices for energy here at home.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GORTON (for himself and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 2301. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 
Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Lakehaven 
water reclamation project for the reclamation and reuse of water; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

[[Page S1816]]

          lakehaven utility district water reclamation project

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I join Senator Murray from 
Washington State in introducing legislation that will authorize the 
Bureau of Reclamation to develop a water reuse project with Lakehaven 
Utility District in Federal Way, WA.
  The Lakehaven Utility District is one of Washington State's largest 
water and sewer utilities, providing 10.5 million gallons of water a 
day to over 100,000 residents in South King County. The utility depends 
on a groundwater supply system that is replenished by local 
precipitation. As development in this Seattle suburb has increased, 
aquifer recharge has diminished. The utility district recognizes it 
must protect its precious resources and has undertaken several projects 
to ensure it will have an adequate water supply for future generations.
  One of these projects involves extensive treatment of the utilities 
effluent for reuse. Some of the treated water will be used to irrigate 
golf courses and other facilities, while the rest of the water will be 
returned to the aquifer through injection wells. The techniques for 
water reuse are innovative, yet proven, and have been implemented 
throughout Nevada and California. Currently, the Lakehaven Utility 
District discharges 6 million gallons of treated water into Puget Sound 
every day. This new program will allow the district to reuse these 
crucial resources while replenishing its precious groundwater supply.
  This legislation amends title XVI of the Reclamation Projects 
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to authorize the Bureau of 
Reclamation to provide the Lakehaven Utility District the technical and 
financial assistance necessary to implement its reuse project.
  I am pleased to support this project, which I believe is crucial to 
maintaining wetlands and rivers in Washington State. The Northwest is 
faced with a salmon crisis that demands every available drop of water 
remain in our streams and riparian areas. The Lakehaven Utility 
District water reclamation project will ensure that the South King 
County community continues to rely on groundwater resources rather than 
turning to other sources that must be preserved for fish recovery.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CLELAND:
  S. 2302. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the enhanced deduction for corporate donations of computer technology 
to public libraries and community centers; to the Committee on Finance.


                  community technology assistance act

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk recently 
about the ``digital divide'' and the differences in the availability of 
information between the technological haves and have nots. With the 
emerging digital economy becoming a major driving force of our nation's 
economic well-being, we must ensure that all Americans have the 
information tools and skills that are critical to full participation in 
the new economy. Access to such tools is an essential step to ensure 
that our economy grows strongly and that in the future no one is left 
behind.
  While we know that Americans are more connected to digital tools than 
ever before, the ``digital divide'' between certain demographic groups 
and regions of our country continues to persist and in many cases is 
widening significantly. As a member of the Commerce Committee, 
Subcommittee on Communications, I am alarmed by these developments. 
Just consider:
  A third of America's economic growth in recent years has come from 
information technologies, producing 19 million new jobs. Yet, while 
thirty percent of white Americans are connected to the Internet only 11 
or 12 percent of African Americans or Hispanic Americans are on-line. 
Households with incomes of at least $75,000 are more than 20 times as 
likely to have access to the Internet as those at the lowest income 
levels, and more than 9 times as likely to have a computer at home. 
Additionally, citizens in rural areas, including large parts of my 
state of Georgia, are less likely to be connected to the Internet than 
urban users. Regardless of income level, those living in rural areas 
are lagging behind in computer ownership and Internet access.
  A viable alternative for many of these under served individuals is 
Internet access outside the home and statistics show that computer use 
at public libraries and community centers is on the rise. First of all, 
among all Americans, 17 percent use the Internet at some site outside 
the home. Secondly, minorities are even more likely to use the Internet 
and pursue online courses and school research at even higher rates. 
Third, those earning less than $20,000 who use the Internet outside the 
home are twice as likely to get their access through a public library 
or community center. Finally, Americans who are not in the labor force, 
such as retirees or homemakers, are twice as likely to use public 
libraries for access.
  Given the ``digital divide'' among these demographic groups, and the 
dependence of many Americans on the use of technology outside the home, 
especially at libraries and community centers, I am introducing today 
the Community Technology Assistance Act. Currently, the special 
enhanced tax deduction exists in the case of computer equipment donated 
to elementary and secondary schools. My bill would extend for five 
years the special enhanced tax deduction, currently scheduled to expire 
at the end of this year, and would expand it to include computer 
donations to libraries and community centers as well as to elementary 
and secondary schools. Consider the many high profile technology and 
Internet related companies, such as Microsoft, Intel and AmericaOnline, 
that have donated computer equipment and web access to schools and 
universities across America. My bill would make it easier for companies 
and individuals to invest in their community and jump start efforts to 
help bridge the ``digital divide'' in rural and low income areas 
everywhere.
  Ensuring access to the fundamental tools of the digital economy is 
one of the most significant investments our nation can make. Our 
country's most important resource is its people. Our companies are only 
as good as their workers. Highly-skilled, well educated workers make 
for stellar businesses and create superior products. In a society that 
increasingly relies on computers and the Internet to deliver 
information and enhance communication, we need to make sure that all 
Americans have access. Our domestic and global economies will demand 
it. Ready access to telecommunications tools will help produce the kind 
of technology-literate work force that will enable the United States to 
continue to be a leader in the global economy well into the 21st 
Century and beyond.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2302

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Community Technology 
     Assistance Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) A third of America's economic growth in recent years 
     has come from information technologies, including 19,000,000 
     new jobs.
       (2) Thirty percent of white Americans are connected to the 
     Internet while only 11 or 12 percent of African Americans or 
     Hispanic Americans are online. Households with incomes of at 
     least $75,000 are more than 20 times as likely to have access 
     to the Internet than those at the lowest income levels, and 
     more than 9 times as likely to have a computer at home.
       (3) Citizens in rural areas are less likely to be connected 
     to the Internet than urban users. Regardless of income level, 
     those living in rural areas are lagging behind in computer 
     ownership and Internet access.
       (4) Unemployed persons who access the Internet outside 
     their homes are nearly 3 times more likely to use the 
     Internet for job searching than the national average. Those 
     Americans who are ``not in the labor force'', such as 
     retirees or homemakers, are twice as likely to use the public 
     libraries for access.
       (5) Those earning less than $20,000 who use the Internet 
     outside the home are twice as likely to get their access 
     through a public library or community center than those 
     earning more than $20,000.
       (6) Minorities are more likely users of the Internet and 
     pursue online courses and school research at even higher 
     rates outside the home (50.3 percent for Hispanics, 47.0 
     percent for American Indians/Eskimos/Aleuts, and 46.3 percent 
     for African Americans).
       (7) Among all Americans, 17.0 percent use the Internet at 
     some site outside the home.

[[Page S1817]]

     Many Americans who obtain Internet access outside the home 
     rely on such places as public libraries (8.2 percent) and 
     community centers (0.6 percent).

     SEC. 3. ENHANCED DEDUCTION FOR CORPORATE DONATIONS OF 
                   COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY TO PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND 
                   COMMUNITY CENTERS.

       (a) Expansion of Computer Technology Donations to Public 
     Libraries and Community Centers.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (6) of section 170(e) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for 
     contributions of computer technology and equipment for 
     elementary or secondary school purposes) is amended by 
     striking ``qualified elementary or secondary educational 
     contribution'' each place it occurs in the headings and text 
     and inserting ``qualified computer contribution''.
       (2) Expansion of eligible donees.--Subclause (II) of 
     section 170(e)(6)(B)(i) of such Code (relating to qualified 
     elementary or secondary educational contribution) is amended 
     by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I) and by 
     inserting after subclause (II) the following new subclauses:

       ``(III) a public library (within the meaning of section 
     213(2)(A) of the Library Services and Technology Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9122(2)(A)), as in effect on the date of the enactment 
     of the Community Technology Assistance Act, established and 
     maintained by an entity described in subsection (c)(1), or
       ``(IV) a nonprofit or governmental community center, 
     including any center within which an after-school or 
     employment training program is operated,''.

       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 170(e)(6)((B)(iv) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by striking ``in any grades K-12''.
       (2) The heading of paragraph (6) of section 170(e) of such 
     Code is amended by striking ``elementary or secondary school 
     purposes'' and inserting ``educational purposes''.
       (c) Extension of Deduction.--Section 170(e)(6)(F) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to termination) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2000'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2005''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SHELBY:
  S. 2304. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phase 
out the taxation of Social Security benefits; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                    older americans tax fairness act

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Older 
Americans Tax Fairness Act. This legislation would eliminate--yes, 
eliminate--the unfair tax on Social Security benefits in this country.
  Last week, this body, the Senate, took a historic step toward giving 
senior citizens more financial freedom and retirement security by 
passing legislation to repeal the earnings limit on Social Security 
benefits. We seized an opportunity to allow seniors to continue to work 
and contribute their skills and knowledge to the most vibrant economy 
in recent memory.
  While the U.S. economy is currently reporting the lowest unemployment 
number in years, employers are finding that labor is difficult to come 
by and they are searching for ways to address this challenge. 
Increasingly, they are turning to senior citizens to fill the void. 
However, many seniors are finding that while they may want to work to 
better their standard of living or have to work to make ends meet, they 
are being hit by an additional tax burden, one that taxes their Social 
Security benefits--their retirement security, in other words--such that 
working, in many cases, is not financially beneficial to them.
  When the Social Security program was first established by Congress, 
Congress did not intend for benefits to be taxed at all. In fact, 
Social Security benefits were exempt from Federal taxes for half a 
century. But because of a financial crisis within the program in the 
eighties and President Clinton's desire to fund new programs in 1993, 
seniors who earn a modest wage now find that anywhere between 50 and 85 
percent of their Social Security benefits are taxed in America. This 
tax on Social Security benefits is misguided, I believe, and only acts 
to penalize hard-working and productive senior members of society. As 
workers, these senior citizens are taxed when they earn their money, as 
we all know, they are taxed when the Government returns it in the form 
of Social Security benefits, and if they are smart enough or lucky 
enough to save it to give it to their children or grandchildren, they 
will have to pay estate taxes, or a death tax, before anyone sees a 
penny, in a lot of cases.
  Not only is this essentially double taxation to some of our most 
vulnerable citizens, our seniors, it is harmful to many seniors. Many 
seniors need to work in order to pay for costly health insurance 
premiums, prescription drugs, and other expenses which they incur as 
they grow older. For these seniors, working is not a choice, it is a 
necessity.
  If we eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits in America, most 
seniors would have more disposable income to pay for many of these 
necessities of life. But rather than helping them, I believe we hurt 
them--that is, the seniors--by taxing their Social Security benefits, 
lowering their standard of living, and decreasing the amount of 
disposable income they have available to them.
  What many fail to recognize is, working seniors continue to 
contribute to the economy not only in terms of knowledge and added 
productivity but by paying taxes on their earnings and paying into the 
Social Security trust fund without ever recognizing an additional 
benefit.
  Clearly, the benefits seniors provide to our economy in terms of 
investment, knowledge, and skills far outweigh the minimal costs to the 
Treasury of repealing this unjust tax on Social Security.
  This tax on Social Security benefits implies the Federal Government 
thinks senior citizens have nothing to contribute in the way of 
effectiveness, efficiency, experience, or knowledge to the workforce. 
You know and I know this is not true.
  Senior citizens are our most valuable resource. They can provide 
knowledge, insight, and experience to our booming economy. And they do. 
We should treat them fairly and allow them to continue to earn and to 
save without imposing a discriminatory ``old age tax'' simply because 
they want to continue to contribute to society.
  Responsible seniors--who plan for their retirement, who save and 
invest for the future, and who strive to leave something to future 
generations--are finding that it is just not worth it. At a time when 
we are trying to encourage savings and investment, it does not make 
sense to continue to tax Social Security benefits.
  I am today encouraging my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
Older Americans Tax Fairness Act to bring additional fairness and 
freedom to the lives of millions of our most respected Americans.
  Let's repeal the tax on Social Security benefits. Let's make it like 
it used to be. It is the right thing for the seniors in America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. 
        Brownback, and Mr. Roth):
  S. 2306. A bill to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the 
Federal Government, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


                  Government for the 21st Century Act

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Government 
for the 21st Century Act, a bill to establish a commission to bring the 
structure and functions of our Government in line with the needs of our 
Nation in the new century. This bipartisan legislation was the result 
of work done by the Governmental Affairs Committee last Congress and is 
virtually identical to S. 2623, 105th Congress. The bill has been 
carefully crafted to address not just what our Government should look 
like, but the more fundamental question of what it should do.
  Clearly, the time has come to take a comprehensive and fresh look at 
what the Federal Government does and how it goes about doing it. 
Despite these good economic times, polls repeatedly show that Americans 
have little trust or confidence in the Federal Government. They want 
the Federal Government to work, but they don't think that it does.
  Unfortunately, our citizens have ample reason for concern. The 
Federal Government of today is a cacophony of agencies and programs, 
many of which are directed at the same problems. Much of what 
Washington does is inefficient and wasteful. Few would dispute that the 
government in Washington cannot do effectively all it is now charged 
with doing. When it comes to specifics, however, changing things is

[[Page S1818]]

extremely difficult. Virtually every Federal agency and program has an 
entrenched constituency to shield it from scrutiny and fend off 
challenges to the status quo. Hence, the familiar axiom that the 
closest thing to immortality is a Washington spending program.
  Federal agencies and programs have mushroomed over time, evolving in 
a largely random manner to respond to the real or perceived needs of 
the moment. Consequently, duplication and fragmentation abound. There 
is an obvious need to bring some order out of this chaos. As former 
Comptroller General Charles Bowsher stated in testimony before the 
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in 1995:

       The case for reorganizing the Federal government is an easy 
     one to make. Many departments and agencies were created in a 
     different time and in response to problems very different 
     from today's. Many have accumulated responsibilities beyond 
     their original purposes. As new challenges arose or new needs 
     were identified, new programs and responsibilities were added 
     to departments and agencies with insufficient regard to their 
     effects on the overall delivery of services to the public.

  The situation has not improved since then. Just last month, the 
current Comptroller General, David Walker, recited an all too familiar 
litany of duplication, waste, mismanagement, and other Federal 
performance problems in testimony before the Senate and House Budget 
Committees. The GAO ``high-risk list'' of those Federal activities most 
vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse has grown from 14 problem areas 
in 1990 to 26 problem areas today. Only one high-risk problem has been 
removed since 1995. Ten of the 14 original high-risk problems are still 
on the list today--a full decade later. Likewise, inspectors general 
identify much the same critical performance problems in their agencies 
year after year. Collectively, these core performance problems cost 
Federal taxpayers countless billions of dollars each year in outright 
waste. They also exact an incalculable toll on the ability of agencies 
to carry out their missions and serve the needs of our citizens.

  Of course, meaningful reform of the Federal Government will not come 
from simply reshuffling current organizational boxes and redistributing 
current programs. We need to conduct a fundamental review of what 
Washington does and why. Our Founding Fathers envisioned a government 
of defined and limited powers. Imagine their dismay if they knew the 
size and scope of the Federal government today. We need to return to 
the limited but effective government that the Founders intended. This 
means divesting the Federal Government of functions it is not well 
suited to perform. However, it also means ensuring that the Federal 
Government does a better job of performing those core constitutional 
functions for which our citizens must rely on it.
  The commission established in the legislation we are introducing 
today is a major step in that direction. It will take a hard look at 
Federal departments, agencies and programs and ask such questions as:
  How can we restructure agencies and programs to improve the 
implementation of their statutory missions, eliminate activities not 
essential to their statutory missions, and reduce duplication of 
activities?
  How can we improve management to maximize productivity, effectiveness 
and accountability of performance results?
  What criteria should we use in determining whether a Federal activity 
should be privatized?
  Which departments or agencies should be eliminated because their 
functions are obsolete, redundant, or could be better performed by 
state and local governments or the private sector?
  Obviously, these questions involve subjective policy decisions. 
However, policy decisions should be the product of honest and open 
debate that stems from objective and fact-based analysis. I am 
convinced that this analysis can best be provided by an independent, 
nonpartisan commission that is removed from the normal pressures of 
Washington.
  The commission will have many information sources available to it. 
The first cycle of implementation of the Government Performance and 
Results Act of 1993 will be complete by the end of this month when 
agencies submit their first performance reports. The plans and reports 
that agencies have submitted under the Results Act, while far from 
perfect, should provide a more comprehensive framework for reviewing 
Federal missions and performance than we have had before.
  I am pleased that Senators Lieberman  and Voinovich are joining me in 
introducing the bill today, and I thank them for the time and staff 
they have devoted to the effort. I look forward to working with them on 
this important legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Government for the 21st Century Act, 
along with a brief summary and section-by-section analysis, be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2306

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Government 
     for the 21st Century Act''.
       (b) Purpose.--
       (1) In general.--The purpose of this Act is to reduce the 
     cost and increase the effectiveness of the Federal Government 
     by reorganizing departments and agencies, consolidating 
     redundant activities, streamlining operations, and 
     decentralizing service delivery in a manner that promotes 
     economy, efficiency, and accountability in Government 
     programs. This Act is intended to result in a Federal 
     Government that--
       (A) utilizes a smaller and more effective workforce;
       (B) motivates its workforce by providing a better 
     organizational environment; and
       (C) ensures greater access and accountability to the public 
     in policy formulation and service delivery.
       (2) Specific goals.--This Act is intended to achieve the 
     following goals for improvements in the performance of the 
     Federal Government by October 1, 2004:
       (A) A restructuring of the cabinet and sub-cabinet level 
     agencies.
       (B) A substantial reduction in the costs of administering 
     Government programs.
       (C) A dramatic and noticeable improvement in the timely and 
     courteous delivery of services to the public.
       (D) Responsiveness and customer-service levels comparable 
     to those achieved in the private sector.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act, the term--
       (1) ``agency'' includes all Federal departments, 
     independent agencies, Government-sponsored enterprises, and 
     Government corporations; and
       (2) ``private sector'' means any business, partnership, 
     association, corporation, educational institution, nonprofit 
     organization, or individuals.

     SEC. 3. THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established an independent 
     commission to be known as the Commission on Government 
     Restructuring and Reform (hereafter in this Act referred to 
     as the ``Commission'').
       (b) Duties.--The Commission shall examine and make 
     recommendations to reform and restructure the organization 
     and operations of the executive branch of the Federal 
     Government to improve economy, efficiency, effectiveness, 
     consistency, and accountability in Government programs and 
     services, and shall include and be limited to proposals to--
       (1) consolidate or reorganize programs, departments, and 
     agencies in order to--
       (A) improve the effective implementation of their statutory 
     missions;
       (B) eliminate activities not essential to the effective 
     implementation of statutory missions;
       (C) reduce the duplication of activities among agencies; or
       (D) reduce layers of organizational hierarchy and personnel 
     where appropriate to improve the effective implementation of 
     statutory missions and increase accountability for 
     performance;
       (2) improve and strengthen management capacity in 
     departments and agencies (including central management 
     agencies) to maximize productivity, effectiveness, and 
     accountability;
       (3) propose criteria for use by the President and Congress 
     in evaluating proposals to establish, or to assign a function 
     to, an executive entity, including a Government corporation 
     or Government-sponsored enterprise;
       (4) define the missions, roles, and responsibilities of any 
     new, reorganized, or consolidated department or agency 
     proposed by the Commission;
       (5) eliminate the departments or agencies whose missions 
     and functions have been determined to be--
       (A) obsolete, redundant, or complete; or
       (B) more effectively performed by other units of government 
     (including other Federal departments and agencies and State 
     and local governments) or by the private sector; and
       (6) establish criteria for use by the President and 
     Congress in evaluating proposals to privatize, or to contract 
     with the private

[[Page S1819]]

     sector for the performance of, functions currently 
     administered by the Federal Government.
       (c) Limitations on Commission Recommendations.--The 
     Commission's recommendations or proposals under this Act may 
     not provide for or have the effect of--
       (1) continuing an agency beyond the period authorized by 
     law for its existence;
       (2) continuing a function beyond the period authorized by 
     law for its existence;
       (3) authorizing an agency to exercise a function which is 
     not already being performed by any agency;
       (4) eliminating the enforcement functions of an agency, 
     except such functions may be transferred to another executive 
     department or independent agency; or
       (5) adding, deleting, or changing any rule of either House 
     of Congress.
       (d) Appointment.--
       (1) Members.--The Commissioners shall be appointed for the 
     life of the Commission and shall be composed of nine members 
     of whom--
       (A) three shall be appointed by the President of the United 
     States;
       (B) two shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (C) one shall be appointed by the minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives;
       (D) two shall be appointed by the majority Leader of the 
     Senate; and
       (E) one shall be appointed by the minority Leader of the 
     Senate.
       (2) Consultation required.--The President, the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, 
     and the minority leader of the Senate shall consult among 
     themselves prior to the appointment of the members of the 
     Commission in order to achieve, to the maximum extent 
     possible, fair and equitable representation of various points 
     of view with respect to the matters to be studied by the 
     Commission under subsection (b).
       (3) Chairman.--At the time the President nominates 
     individuals for appointment to the Commission the President 
     shall designate one such individual who shall serve as 
     Chairman of the Commission.
       (4) Membership.--A member of the Commission may be any 
     citizen of the United States who is not an elected or 
     appointed Federal public official, a Federal career civil 
     servant, or a congressional employee.
       (5) Conflict of interests.--For purposes of the provisions 
     of chapter 11 of part I of title 18, United States Code, a 
     member of the Commission (to whom such provisions would not 
     otherwise apply except for this paragraph) shall be a special 
     Government employee.
       (6) Date of appointments.--All members of the Commission 
     shall be appointed within 90 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (e) Terms.--Each member shall serve until the termination 
     of the Commission.
       (f) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission shall be filled 
     in the same manner as was the original appointment.
       (g) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet as necessary to 
     carry out its responsibilities. The Commission may conduct 
     meetings outside the District of Columbia when necessary.
       (h) Pay and Travel Expenses.--
       (1) Pay.--
       (A) Chairman.--Except for an individual who is chairman of 
     the Commission and is otherwise a Federal officer or 
     employee, the chairman shall be paid at a rate equal to the 
     daily equivalent of the minimum annual rate of basic pay 
     payable for level III of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5314 of title 5, United States Code, for each day (including 
     traveltime) during which the chairman is engaged in the 
     performance of duties vested in the Commission.
       (B) Members.--Except for the chairman who shall be paid as 
     provided under subparagraph (A), each member of the 
     Commission who is not a Federal officer or employee shall be 
     paid at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the minimum 
     annual rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including traveltime) during which 
     the member is engaged in the performance of duties vested in 
     the Commission.
       (2) Travel.--Members of the Commission shall receive travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in 
     accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (i) Director.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Chairman of the Commission shall 
     appoint a Director of the Commission without regard to 
     section 5311(b) of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Pay.--The Director shall be paid at the rate of basic 
     pay payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.
       (j) Staff.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Director may, with the approval of 
     the Commission, appoint and fix the pay of employees of the 
     Commission without regard to the provisions of title 5, 
     United States Code, governing appointment in the competitive 
     service, and any Commission employee may be paid without 
     regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of 
     chapter 53 of that title relating to classification and 
     General Schedule pay rates, except that a Commission employee 
     may not receive pay in excess of the annual rate of basic pay 
     payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5316 of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Detail.--
       (A) Details from agencies.--Upon request of the Director, 
     the head of any Federal department or agency may detail any 
     of the personnel of the department or agency to the 
     Commission to assist the Commission in carrying out its 
     duties under this Act.
       (B) Details from congress.--Upon request of the Director, a 
     Member of Congress or an officer who is the head of an office 
     of the Senate or House of Representatives may detail an 
     employee of the office or committee of which such Member or 
     officer is the head to the Commission to assist the 
     Commission in carrying out its duties under this Act.
       (C) Reimbursement.--Any Federal Government employee may be 
     detailed to the Commission with or without reimbursement, and 
     such detail shall be without interruption or loss of civil 
     service status or privilege.
       (k) Support.--
       (1) Support services.--The Office of Management and Budget 
     shall provide support services to the Commission.
       (2) Assistance.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States may provide assistance, including the detailing of 
     employees, to the Commission in accordance with an agreement 
     entered into with the Commission.
       (l) Other Authority.--The Commission may procure by 
     contract, to the extent funds are available, the temporary or 
     intermittent services of experts or consultants pursuant to 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code. The Commission 
     shall give public notice of any such contract before entering 
     into such contract.
       (m) Application of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The 
     Commission shall be subject to the provisions of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (n) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Commission $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2000, and 
     $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003 to 
     enable the Commission to carry out its duties under this Act.
       (o) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate no later 
     than September 30, 2003.

     SEC. 4. PROCEDURES FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) Presidential Recommendations.--No later than July 1, 
     2001, the President may submit to the Commission a report 
     making recommendations consistent with the criteria under 
     section 3 (b) and (c). Such a report shall contain a single 
     legislative proposal (including legislation proposed to be 
     enacted) to implement those recommendations for which 
     legislation is necessary or appropriate.
       (b) In General.--No later than December 1, 2002, the 
     Commission shall prepare and submit a single preliminary 
     report to the President and Congress, which shall include--
       (1) a description of the Commission's findings and 
     recommendations, taking into account any recommendations 
     submitted by the President to the Commission under subsection 
     (a); and
       (2) reasons for such recommendations.
       (c) Commission Votes.--No legislative proposal or 
     preliminary or final report (including a final report after 
     disapproval) may be submitted by the Commission to the 
     President and Congress without the affirmative vote of at 
     least 6 members.
       (d) Department and Agency Cooperation.--All Federal 
     departments, agencies, and divisions and employees of all 
     departments, agencies, and divisions shall cooperate fully 
     with all requests for information from the Commission and 
     shall respond to any such requests for information 
     expeditiously, or no later than 15 calendar days or such 
     other time agreed upon by the requesting and requested 
     parties.

     SEC. 5. PROCEDURE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF REPORTS.

       (a) Preliminary Report and Review Procedure.--Any 
     preliminary report submitted to the President and Congress 
     under section 4(b) shall be made immediately available to the 
     public. During the 60-day period beginning on the date on 
     which the preliminary report is submitted, the Commission 
     shall announce and hold public hearings for the purpose of 
     receiving comments on the reports.
       (b) Final Report.--No later than 6 months after the 
     conclusion of the period for public hearing under subsection 
     (a), the Commission shall prepare and submit a final report 
     to the President. Such report shall be made available to the 
     public on the date of submission to the President. Such 
     report shall include--
       (1) a description of the Commission's findings and 
     recommendations, including a description of changes made to 
     the report as a result of public comment on the preliminary 
     report;
       (2) reasons for such recommendations; and
       (3) a single legislative proposal (including legislation 
     proposed to be enacted) to implement those recommendations 
     for which legislation is necessary or appropriate.
       (c) Extension of Final Report.--By affirmative vote 
     pursuant to section 4(c), the Commission may extend the 
     deadline under subsection (b) by a period not to exceed 90 
     days.
       (d) Review by the President.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Presidential action.--No later than 30 calendar days 
     after receipt of a final report under subsection (b), the 
     President shall approve or disapprove the report.
       (B) Presidential inaction.--

[[Page S1820]]

       (i) In general.--If the President does not approve or 
     disapprove the final report within 30 calendar days in 
     accordance with subparagraph (A), Congress shall consider the 
     report in accordance with clause (ii).
       (ii) Submission.--Subject to clause (i), the Commission 
     shall submit the final report, without further modification, 
     to Congress on the date occurring 31 calendar days after the 
     date on which the Commission submitted the final report to 
     the President under subsection (b).
       (2) Approval.--If the report is approved, the President 
     shall submit the report to Congress for legislative action 
     under section 6.
       (3) Disapproval.--If the President disapproves a final 
     report, the President shall report specific issues and 
     objections, including the reasons for any changes recommended 
     in the report, to the Commission and Congress.
       (4) Final report after disapproval.--The Commission shall 
     consider any issues or objections raised by the President and 
     may modify the report based on such issues and objections. No 
     later than 30 calendar days after receipt of the President's 
     disapproval under paragraph (3), the Commission shall submit 
     the final report (as modified if modified) to the President 
     and to Congress.

     SEC. 6. CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF REFORM PROPOSALS.

       (a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``implementation bill'' means only a bill 
     which is introduced as provided under subsection (b), and 
     contains the proposed legislation included in the final 
     report submitted to the Congress under section 5(d) (1)(B), 
     (2), or (4), without modification; and
       (2) the term ``calendar day'' means a calendar day other 
     than one on which either House is not in session because of 
     an adjournment of more than three days to a date certain.
       (b) Introduction, Referral, and Report or Discharge.--
       (1) Introduction.--On the first calendar day on which both 
     Houses are in session, on or immediately following the date 
     on which a final report is submitted to the Congress under 
     section 5(d) (1)(B), (2), or (4), a single implementation 
     bill shall be introduced (by request)--
       (A) in the Senate by the Majority Leader of the Senate, for 
     himself and the Minority Leader of the Senate, or by Members 
     of the Senate designated by the Majority Leader and Minority 
     Leader of the Senate; and
       (B) in the House of Representatives by the Majority Leader 
     of the House of Representatives, for himself and the Minority 
     Leader of the House of Representatives, or by Members of the 
     House of Representatives designated by the Majority Leader 
     and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
       (2) Referral.--The implementation bills introduced under 
     paragraph (1) shall be referred to the appropriate committee 
     of jurisdiction in the Senate and the appropriate committee 
     of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives. A committee 
     to which an implementation bill is referred under this 
     paragraph may report such bill to the respective House with 
     amendments proposed to be adopted. No such amendment may be 
     proposed unless such proposed amendment is relevant to such 
     bill.
       (3) Report or discharge.--If a committee to which an 
     implementation bill is referred has not reported such bill by 
     the end of the 30th calendar day after the date of the 
     introduction of such bill, such committee shall be 
     immediately discharged from further consideration of such 
     bill, and upon being reported or discharged from the 
     committee, such bill shall be placed on the appropriate 
     calendar.
       (c) Senate Consideration.--
       (1) In general.--On or after the fifth calendar day after 
     the date on which an implementation bill is placed on the 
     Senate calendar under subsection (b)(3), it is in order (even 
     if a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed 
     to) for any Senator to make a motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of the implementation bill. The motion is not 
     debatable. All points of order against the implementation 
     bill (and against consideration of the implementation bill) 
     other than points of order under Senate Rule 15, 16, or for 
     failure to comply with requirements of this section are 
     waived. The motion is not subject to a motion to postpone. A 
     motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion to proceed 
     is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a 
     motion to proceed to the consideration of the implementation 
     bill is agreed to, the Senate shall immediately proceed to 
     consideration of the implementation bill.
       (2) Debate.--In the Senate, no amendment which is not 
     relevant to the bill shall be in order. A motion to postpone 
     is not in order. A motion to recommit the implementation bill 
     is not in order. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the 
     implementation bill is agreed to or disagreed to is not in 
     order.
       (3) Appeals from chair.--Appeals from the decisions of the 
     Chair relating to the application of the rules of the Senate 
     to the procedure relating to an implementation bill shall be 
     decided without debate.
       (d) Consideration in the House of Representatives.--
       (1) In general.--At any time on or after the fifth calendar 
     day after the date on which each committee of the House of 
     Representatives to which an implementation bill is referred 
     has reported that bill, or has been discharged under 
     subsection (b)(3) from further consideration of that bill, 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the State of the Union for the consideration of that 
     bill. All points of order against the bill, the consideration 
     of the bill, and provisions of the bill shall be waived, and 
     the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. After 
     general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and which 
     shall not exceed 10 hours, to be equally divided and 
     controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, 
     the bill shall be considered for amendment by title under the 
     five-minute rule and each title shall be considered as having 
     been read.
       (2) Amendments.--Each amendment shall be considered as 
     having been read, shall not be subject to a demand for a 
     division of the question in the House or in the Committee of 
     the Whole, and shall be debatable for not to exceed 30 
     minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     a Member opposed thereto, except that the time for 
     consideration, including debate and disposition, of all 
     amendments to the bill shall not exceed 20 hours.
       (3) Final passage.--At the conclusion of the consideration 
     of the bill, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
     the House with such amendments as may have been agreed to, 
     and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
       (e) Conference.--
       (1) Appointment of conferees.--In the Senate, a motion to 
     elect or to authorize the appointment of conferees by the 
     presiding officer shall not be debatable.
       (2) Conference report.--No later than 20 calendar days 
     after the appointment of conferees, the conferees shall 
     report to their respective Houses.
       (f) Rules of the Senate and House.--This section is enacted 
     by Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is 
     deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but 
     applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed 
     in that House in the case of an implementation bill described 
     in subsection (a), and it supersedes other rules only to the 
     extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
     House.

     SEC. 7. IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) Responsibility for Implementation.--The Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall have primary 
     responsibility for implementation of the Commission's report 
     and the Act enacted under section 6 (unless such Act provides 
     otherwise). The Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall notify and provide direction to heads of 
     affected departments, agencies, and programs. The head of an 
     affected department, agency, or program shall be responsible 
     for implementation and shall proceed with the recommendations 
     contained in the report as provided under subsection (b).
       (b) Departments and Agencies.--After the enactment of an 
     Act under section 6, each affected Federal department and 
     agency as a part of its annual budget request shall transmit 
     to the appropriate committees of Congress its schedule for 
     implementation of the provisions of the Act for each fiscal 
     year. In addition, the report shall contain an estimate of 
     the total expenditures required and the cost savings to be 
     achieved by each action, along with the Secretary's 
     assessment of the effect of the action. The report shall also 
     include a report of any activities that have been eliminated, 
     consolidated, or transferred to other departments or 
     agencies.
       (c) GAO Oversight.--The Comptroller General shall 
     periodically report to Congress and the President regarding 
     the accomplishment, the costs, the timetable, and the 
     effectiveness of the implementation of any Act enacted under 
     section 6.

     SEC. 8. DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS.

       Any proceeds from the sale of assets of any department or 
     agency resulting from the enactment of an Act under section 6 
     shall be--
       (1) applied to reduce the Federal deficit; and
       (2) deposited in the Treasury and treated as general 
     receipts.
                                  ____


           Government for the 21st Century Act--Brief Summary

       This legislation will reduce the cost and increase the 
     effectiveness of the Federal government. It achieves this by 
     establishing a commission to submit to Congress and the 
     President a plan to bring the structure and operations of the 
     Federal government in line with the needs of Americans in the 
     new century.
       Duties of the Commission: The Commission is authorized 
     under this legislation to propose the reorganization of 
     Federal departments and agencies, the elimination of 
     activities not essential to fulfilling agency missions, the 
     streamlining of government operations, and the consolidation 
     of redundant activities.
       The Commission would not be authorized to continue any 
     agency or function beyond its current life, authorize 
     functions not performed already by the Federal government, 
     eliminate enforcement functions, or change the rules of 
     Congress.

[[Page S1821]]

       Composition of the Commission: The Commission would consist 
     of 9 members appointed by the President and the Congressional 
     leadership of both parties.
       How the Commission works: The process established in this 
     legislation is bipartisan, allows input by the President, and 
     is fully open and public.
       The Commission report: By July 1, 2001, the President may 
     submit his recommendations to the Commission. By December 1, 
     2002, the Commission shall submit to the President and 
     Congress a preliminary report containing recommendations on 
     restructuring the Federal Government. After a public comment 
     period, the Commission shall prepare a final report and 
     submit it to the President for review and comment.
       Presidential review and comment: The President has 30 days 
     to approve or disapprove the Commission's report. The 
     Commission decides whether or not to modify its report based 
     on the President's comments, and shall issue a final report 
     to Congress.
       Congressional consideration: The final report shall be 
     introduced in both Houses by request and referred to the 
     appropriate committee(s). After 30 days, the bills may be 
     considered by the full House and Senate and are subject to 
     amendment.
       Implementation: Once legislation effecting the Commission's 
     recommendations is enacted, the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall be responsible for implementing it. The General 
     Accounting Office shall report to Congress on the progress of 
     implementation.
                                  ____


    Government for the 21st Century Act--Section-by-Section Analysis


                   seciton 1. short title and purpose

       This act may be cited as the ``Government for the 21st 
     Century Act.'' Its purpose is to reduce the cost and increase 
     the effectiveness of the Executive Branch. It achieves this 
     by creating a commission to propose to Congress and the 
     President a plan to reorganize departments and agencies, 
     consolidate redundant activities, streamline operations, and 
     decentralize service delivery in a manner that promotes 
     economy, efficiency, and accountability in government 
     programs.


                         section 2. definitions

       This section defines ``agency'' to include all Federal 
     departments, independent agencies, government-sponsored 
     enterprises and government corporations, and defines 
     ``private sector'' as any business, partnership, association, 
     corporation, educational institution, nonprofit organization, 
     or individual.


                       section 3. the commission

       This section establishes a commission, known as the 
     Commission on Government Restructuring and Reform, to make 
     recommendations to reform and restructure the Executive 
     Branch. The Commission shall make proposals to consolidate, 
     reorganize or eliminate Executive Branch agencies and 
     programs in order to improve effectiveness, efficiency, 
     consistency and accountability in government. The Commission 
     shall also recommend criteria by which to determine which 
     functions of government should be privatized. The Commission 
     may not propose to continue agencies or functions beyond 
     their current legal authorization, nor may the Commission 
     propose to eliminate enforcement functions entirely or change 
     the rules of either House of Congress.
       The Commission shall be composed of 9 members appointed as 
     follows: Three by the President, two by the Majority Leader 
     of the Senate, two by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, and one each by the Minority Leaders of the 
     Senate and House.
       The Commission shall be managed by a Director and shall 
     have a staff, which may include detailees. The Office of 
     Management and Budget shall provide support services and the 
     Comptroller General may provide assistance to the Commission.
       This section authorizes $2.5 million to be appropriated in 
     fiscal year 2000 and $5 million each for fiscal years 2001 
     through 2003 for the Commission to carry out its duties. It 
     also provides that the Commission shall terminate no later 
     than September 30, 2003.


            section 4. procedures for making recommendations

       By July 1, 2001, the President may submit his 
     recommendations on government reorganization to the 
     Commission. The President's recommendations must be 
     consistent with the duties and limitations given to the 
     Commission in formulating its recommendations and must be 
     transmitted to the Commission as a single legislative 
     proposal.
       By December 1, 2002, the commission shall prepare and 
     submit a single preliminary report to the President and 
     Congress. That report must include a description of the 
     Commission's findings and recommendations and the reasons for 
     such recommendations. The proposal must be approved by at 
     lest 6 members of the Commission.
       This section also provides that all Federal departments and 
     agencies must cooperate fully with requests for information 
     from the Commission.


          section 5. procedures for implementation of reports

       This section provides that any preliminary report submitted 
     to the President and the Congress under section 4 be made 
     available immediately to the public. During the 60-day period 
     after the submission of the preliminary report, the 
     Commission shall hold public hearings to receive comments on 
     the report.
       Six months after the conclusion of the period for public 
     comments, the Commission shall submit a final report to the 
     President. this report shall be made a available to the 
     public and shall include a description of the Commission's 
     findings and recommendations, the reasons for such 
     recommendations, and a single legislative proposal to 
     implement the recommendations.
       The President shall then approve or disapprove the report 
     within 30 days. If he fails to act after 30 days, the report 
     is immediately submitted to Congress. If the President 
     approves the report, he then shall submit the report to 
     Congress for legislative action under section 6.
       If he disapproves the final report, the President shall 
     report specific issues and objections, including the reasons 
     for any changes recommended in the report, to the Commission 
     and Congress. For 30 days after the President disapproves a 
     report, the Commission may consider any issues and objections 
     raised by the President and may modify the report with 
     respect to these issues and objections. After 30 days, the 
     Commission must submit its final report (as modified if 
     modified) to the President and Congress.


       section 6. congressional consideration of reform proposals

       After a final report is submitted to the Congress, single 
     implementation bill shall be introduced by request in the 
     House and Senate by the Majority and Minority Leaders in each 
     chamber or their designees.
       This section stipulates that the implementation bill be 
     referred to the appropriate committee of jurisdiction in the 
     House and Senate. Each committee must report the bill to its 
     respective House chamber within 30 days, with relevant 
     amendments proposed to be adopted. If a committee fails to 
     report such a bill within 30 days, that committee is 
     immediately discharged from further consideration and the 
     bill is placed on the appropriate calendar.
       Section 6(c) outlines procedures for Senate floor 
     consideration of legislation implementing the Commission's 
     recommendations. On or after the fifth calendar day after the 
     date on which the implementation bill is placed on the Senate 
     calendar, any Senator may make a privileged motion to 
     consider the implementation bill. Only relevant amendments 
     shall be in order, and motions to postpone, recommit, or 
     reconsider the vote by which the bill is agreed to are not in 
     order.
       Section 6(d) outlines procedures for House floor 
     consideration of legislation implementing the Commission's 
     recommendations. General debate on the implementation bill is 
     limited to 10 hours equally divided, and controlled by the 
     Majority and Minority Leaders. Amendments shall be considered 
     by title under the five minute rule, and shall be debatable 
     for 30 minutes equally divided. Debate on all amendments 
     shall not exceed 20 hours.
       This section further states that within 20 calendar days, 
     conferees shall report to their respective House.


                       section 7. implementation

       The Office of Management and Budget shall have primary 
     responsibility for implementing the Commission's report and 
     any legislation that is enacted, unless otherwise specified 
     in the implementation bill.
       Federal departments and agencies are required to include a 
     schedule for implementation of the provisions of the 
     implementation legislation as a part of their annual budget 
     request.
       GAO is given oversight responsibility and is required to 
     report to the Congress and the President regarding the 
     accomplishments, costs, timetable, and effectiveness of the 
     implementation process.


                   section 8. distribution of assets

       Any proceeds from the sale of assets of any department or 
     agency resulting from the implementation legislation shall be 
     deposited in the treasury and treated as general receipts.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators 
Thompson, Voinovich, Brownback and Roth today to introduce the 
Government for the 21st Century Act. This bill provides an opportunity 
to address the challenges our government will face in the new 
millennium. Our country is undergoing rapid changes--changes brought 
about by technological advancements, by our expanding and increasingly 
global economy, and by the new and more diverse threats to our nation 
and our world. It is essential for our government to be prepared to 
respond effectively to these challenges.
  We should take the opportunity now to rethink the structure of our 
government to be sure it can meet the needs of our citizens in the 
years to come. The Commission that will be established under this bill 
will have a critical task--to study the current shape of our government 
and to make recommendations about how we can improve its efficiency and 
effectiveness, streamline its operations, and eliminate unnecessary 
duplication.
  I view the bill we are introducing today as a discussion draft. Our 
goal is to hear from a wide range of experts on government and 
management. I look

[[Page S1822]]

forward to reviewing new ideas that will enhance the value of the 
Commission's work. For example, I intend to recommend that the 
Commission focuses on the enormous potential benefit of ``E-
government.'' The Commission should consider how government can be 
restructured to promote the innovative use of information technology. 
American citizens increasingly expect services and information to be 
provided electronically through Internet-based technology. While the 
federal government is working to take advantage of the opportunities 
technology presents to do its job better, more needs to be done to 
fully integrate these capabilities and to offer services and 
information to Americans in a more accessible and cost-effective way.
  I look forward to working with Senators Thompson, Brownback, Roth and 
Voinovich on this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Johnson, 
        and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 2307. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to encourage 
broadband deployment to rural America, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                    rural broadband enhancement act

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am, along with Senator Daschle, 
Senator Baucus and Senator Johnson, introducing the Rural Broadband 
Enhancement Act to deploy broadband technology to rural America. As the 
demand for high speed Internet access grows, numerous companies are 
responding in areas of dense population. While urban America is quickly 
gaining high speed access, rural America is--once again--being left 
behind. Ensuring that all Americans have the technological capability 
is essential in this digital age. It is not only an issue of fairness, 
but it is also an issue of economic survival.
  To remedy the gap between urban and rural America, this legislation 
gives new authority to the Rural Utilities Service to make low interest 
loans to companies that are deploying broadband technology to rural 
America. Loans are made on a company neutral and a technology neutral 
basis so that companies that want to serve these areas can do so by 
employing technology that is best suited to a particular area. Without 
this program, market forces will pass by much of America, and that is 
unacceptable.
  This issue is not a new one. When we were faced with electrifying all 
of the country, we enacted the Rural Electrification Act. When 
telephone service was only being provided to well-populated 
communities, we expanded the Rural Electrification Act and created the 
Rural Utilities Service to oversee rural telephone deployment. The 
equitable deployment of broadband services is only the next step in 
keeping America connected, and our legislation would ensure that.
  If we fail to act, rural America will be left behind once again. As 
the economy moves further and further towards online transactions and 
communications, rural America must be able to participate. 
Historically, our economy has been defined by geography, and we in 
Congress were powerless to do anything about it. Where there were 
ports, towns and businesses got their start. Where there were railroad 
tracks, towns and businesses grew up around them. The highway system 
brought the same evolution.
  But the Internet is changing all of that. No longer must economic 
growth be defined by geographic fiat. Telecommunications industries and 
policy-makers are proclaiming, ``Distance is dead!'' But, that's not 
quite right: Distance will be dead, as long as Congress ensures that 
broadband services are available to all parts of America, urban and 
rural.
  I look forward to working with Senator Daschle, Senator Baucus, 
Senator Johnson and my other colleagues in the Senate to pass this 
legislation and give rural America a fair chance to survive.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Graham, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 2308. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
assure preservation of safety net hospitals through maintenance of the 
Medicaid disproportionate share hospital program; to the Committee on 
Finance.


              the medicaid safety net hospital act of 2000

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today, I join with my colleagues, 
Senators Graham and Feinstein, in introducing legislation to ensure 
that our safety net hospitals continue to be able to care for the poor 
and the uninsured.
  The Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) program provides 
vital funding to safety net hospitals that primarily serve Medicaid and 
uninsured patients. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 placed declining 
state-specified ceilings on federal Medicaid DSH spending from 1998-
2002. In 2003, the limits will begin to be adjusted upwards for 
inflation. The Medicaid Safety Net Hospital Act of 2000 would freeze 
the state-specific caps at this year's limits (thereby preventing 
further declines in the limits) and adjust them for inflation beginning 
in 2002.
  It is essential to provide much-needed support to our safety net 
hospitals. The number of uninsured in the United States increases every 
year, in part because of declining Medicaid enrollment as a result of 
welfare reform. There are now 44 million Americans without health 
insurance who have no choice but to turn to the emergency rooms of 
safety net hospitals for care. Yet, even as demands on safety net 
hospitals increase, DSH spending per State is being further reduced. 
The Medicaid Safety Net Hospital Act of 2000 would maintain significant 
savings achieved by prior reductions but would protect safety net 
hospitals from further DSH cuts. As a result, hospitals would have 
access to the financing they need for achieving their social mission.
  Mr. President, Congress should act now to preserve the financial 
ability of our safety net hospitals to provide health care to the poor 
and uninsured/
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2308

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Medicaid Safety Net Hospital 
     Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FREEZING MEDICAID DSH ALLOTMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 
                   AT LEVELS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000.

       Section 1923(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396r-4(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2001'';
       (B) in the matter preceding the table, by striking ``2002'' 
     and inserting ``2001 (and the DSH allotment for a State for 
     fiscal year 2001 is the same as the DSH allotment for the 
     State for fiscal year 2000, as determined under the following 
     table)''; and
       (C) by striking the columns in the table relating to FY 01 
     and FY 02 (fiscal years 2001 and 2002); and
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``2003'' and inserting 
     ``2002''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``2003'' and inserting 
     ``2002''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
Medicaid Safety Net Hospital Act of 2000, a bill that would freeze 
Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments to hospitals at 
their 2000 level for Fiscal Year 2001 and 2002. I hope the Senate can 
act promptly on this bill.
  The number of people in our nation who have no medical insurance has 
hit some 44 million. This is tragic. More than 100,000 people join the 
ranks of the uninsured monthly. We cannot continue to reduce payments 
to hospitals that provide care for the uninsured. We cannot balance the 
budget on the backs of poor people who show up at emergency rooms with 
no insurance or on the backs of the hospitals that tend to them.
  California bears a disproportionate burden of uncompensated care. 
Twenty-four percent of our population is uninsured. Nationwide, the 
rate is 17 percent. Currently, over 7 million Californians are 
uninsured. During the past few months, I have met with many California 
health care leaders. They fear that the Medicaid cuts contained in the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have undermined the financial stability of 
California's health care system, which many believe to be on the verge 
of collapse.
  As a result of Medicaid reductions in the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997, California's Medicaid Disproportionate

[[Page S1823]]

Share Hospital program could lose more than $280 million by 2002. 
Federal Medicaid DSH payments to California have declined by more than 
$116 million in the past two years and are slated to be cut by an 
additional $164 million--17 percent--over the next two years.
  Without this bill, for example, by Fiscal Year 2002 Los Angeles 
County- University of Southern California Medical Center will lose 
$13.5 million. San Francisco General will lose $5.2 million. Fresno 
Community Hospital will lose $10.5 million. Over 132 California 
hospitals, representing rural and urban communities, depend on Medicaid 
DSH payments. Under this bill, millions of dollars will be restored to 
California public hospitals.
  Public hospitals carry a disproportionate share of caring for the 
poor and uninsured. 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 from 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.
  The uninsured often choose public hospitals and frequently wait until 
their illnesses or injuries require emergency treatment. This makes 
their care even more costly. California's emergency rooms are strained 
to the breaking point. Last week at a California State Senate hearing, 
Dr. Dan Abbott, an emergency room physician at St. Jude Hospital in 
Fullerton, California said: ``We feel that emergency care in California 
is overwhelmed, it's underfunded and at times, frankly, it is out-and-
out dangerous.'' Statewide, 19 emergency rooms have closed since 1997 
despite an increase in the number of uninsured requiring care. The 
burden to provide care is put on those hospitals who have managed to 
remain open, and many of those hospitals are currently facing financial 
problems of their own.
  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.
  Earlier this month, Scripps Memorial Hospital East County closed its 
doors due in part to reimbursement problems.
  Eighty-six California hospitals operated in the red in 1999.
  Academic medical centers, which incur added costs unique to their 
mission, are facing margins reduced to zero and below.
  Sixty-two percent of California hospitals are now losing money. Due 
to the large number of Medicare and Medicaid patients, sixty-nine 
percent of California's rural hospitals lost money in 1998, according 
to the California Healthcare Association.
  Hospitals have laid off staff, limited hours of operation, and 
discontinued services.
  California physician groups are failing at the rate of one a week, 
with 115 bankruptcies or closures since 1996.
  In short, restoring Medicaid cuts is crucial to stabilizing 
California's health delivery system.
  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 GDP growth and lower 
unemployment, we also have lowered Medicaid spending growth more than 
anticipated. This climate provides us an opportunity to revisit the 
reductions contained in 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 need to pass this bill. Without it, we could have a more severe 
health care crisis on our hands, especially in California. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in passing this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE:
  S. 2309. A bill to establish a commission to assess the performance 
of the civil works function of the Secretary of the Army; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


Corps of Engineers Civil Works Independent Investigation and Review Act

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, over the last couple of months the 
Washington Post has published a number of very troubling articles about 
the operations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
  These stories expose the existence of independent agendas within the 
Corps. They suggest cost-benefit analyses rigged to justify billion 
dollar projects; disregard for environmental laws, and a pattern of 
catering to special interests.
  The actions described in the Post articles raise serious questions 
about the accountability of the Corps. And they present a compelling 
case for a thorough review of the agency's operations and management.
  And it is not only the Post articles that cause me to believe this.
  The Corps' current effort to update the Missouri River Master Control 
Manual--the policy document that governs the Corps' management of the 
river from Montana to Missouri--illustrates not only that the Corps can 
be indifferent to the environment. Too often, it actually erects 
institutional barriers that make achieving certain critical ecological 
goals difficult or impossible.
  This ought to be a concern to all Americans. It is a deep concern to 
South Dakotans. The Missouri runs down the center of our state and is a 
major source of income, recreation and pride for us.
  More than 40 years ago, the Corps built dams up and down the Missouri 
River in order to harness hydroelectric power. In return, it promised 
to manage the river wisely and efficiently.
  That promise has not been kept.
  Silt has built up, choking the river in several spots.
  In recent years, studies have been done to determine how to restore 
the river to health. An overwhelming amount of scientific and technical 
data all point to the same conclusion.
  The flow of the river should more closely mimic nature. Flows should 
be higher in the spring, and lower in the summer--just as they are in 
nature.
  Yet the Corps proposes to continue doing largely what it has been 
doing all these years--knowing the consequences, knowing exactly what 
the practices have produced now for the last 50-plus years.
  The agency's refusal to change will further jeopardize endangered 
species. And, it will continue to erode the recreational value of the 
river, which is 12 times more important to the economy than its 
navigational value.
  Why does the Corps insist--despite all the evidence--on this course?
  It does it to protect the barge industry--a $7 million-a-year 
industry that American taxpayers already spend $8 million a year to 
support. $8 million. That's how much American taxpayers pay each year 
for channel maintenance, to accommodate the barge industry.
  The Washington Post suggests that the Corps handling of the Missouri 
River Master Manual is not an isolated case.
  The Post articles contain allegations by a Corps whistleblower who 
says that a study of proposed upper-Mississippi lock expansions was 
rigged to provide an economic justification for that billion-dollar 
project.
  In response to these allegations, the Corps' own Office of Special 
Counsel concluded that the agency--quote-- ``probably broke laws and 
engaged in a gross waste of funds.''
  In my own dealings with the Corps of Engineers, I too have 
experienced the institutional problems recorded so starkly in the Post 
series.
  In South Dakota, where the Corps operates four hydroelectric dams, we 
have fought for more than 40 years to force the agency to meet its 
responsibilities under the 1958 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and 
mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat resulting from the construction 
of those dams.
  For 40 years, the Corps has failed to meet those responsibilities.
  That is why I have worked closely with the Governor of my state, Bill 
Janklow, and with many other South Dakotans, to come up with a plan to 
transfer of Corps lands back to the state of South Dakota and two 
Indian tribes.
  Unfortunately, instead of attempting to work with us, the Corps is 
fighting us.

[[Page S1824]]

  The litany of excuses, scare tactics and misinformation the Corps 
employed to try to defeat our proposal is outrageous. It appears Corps 
officials are not nearly as concerned with preserving the river as they 
are with preserving their own bureaucracy.
  After the legislation was enacted, the Chief of the Engineers, 
General Joseph Ballard continued to resist its implementation. In fact, 
my own experiences with the Corps, and the experiences of other 
members, repeatedly demonstrates General Ballard's unwillingness to 
follow civilian direction and ensure the faithful implementation of the 
law.
  When considered in the context of the litany of problems that have 
come to light in the Post series, Congress has no choice but to 
consider seriously moving the responsibilities of the Corps from the 
Army and placing them within the Department of the Interior. Too much 
power now is concentrated in the hands of the Chief of the Engineers, 
and that power too often has been abused.
  General Ballard's lack of responsiveness to the law, to meeting 
environmental objectives and to civilian direction, has serious 
consequences for individual projects.
  Beyond that, it raises very troubling questions about the lack of 
meaningful civilian control over this federal agency.
  In a democracy, institutions of government must be held accountable. 
That is the job of Congress--to hold them responsible.
  The existence of separate agendas within the Corps bureaucracy cannot 
be tolerated if our democracy is to succeed in representing the will of 
the people. Its elected representatives and the civil servants 
appointed by them must maintain control of the apparatus of government.
  Moreover, contempt for environmental laws and self-serving economic 
analyses simply cannot be tolerated if Congress is to make well-
informed decisions regarding the authorization of expensive projects, 
and if the American taxpayer is to be assured that federal monies are 
being spent wisely.
  The Corps of Engineers provides a valuable national service. It 
constructs and manages needed projects throughout the country.
  The size and scope of the biannual Water Resources Development Act is 
clear evidence of the importance of the Corps' civil works mission.
  Because the Corps' work is so critical, it is essential that steps be 
taken immediately to determine the extent of the problems within the 
agency--and to design meaningful and lasting reforms to correct them.
  Our nation needs a civil works program we can depend on. We need a 
Corps of Engineers that conducts credible analysis.
  We need a Corps that balances economic development and environmental 
protection as required by its mandate--not one that ignores 
environmental laws as it chooses.
  History does not offer much room for confidence that the Army Corps 
of Engineers can meet these standards under its current management 
structure. Therefore, I am introducing legislation today to establish 
an independent Corps of Engineers Investigation and Review Commission.
  The commission will take a hard and systemic look at the agency and 
make recommendations to Congress on needed reforms.
  It will examine a number of issues, including:
  The effectiveness of civilian control in the Corps, particularly the 
effectiveness of the relationship between uniformed officers and the 
Assistant Secretary for civil works with regard to responsiveness, 
lines of authority, and coordination;
  The Corps' compliance with environmental laws--including the Fish and 
Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act and NEPA--in the 
design and operation of projects;
  The quality and objectivity of the agency's scientific and economic 
analysis;
  The extent to which the Corps coordinates and cooperates with other 
state and federal agencies in designing and implementing projects;
  The appropriateness of the agency's size, budget and personnel; and
       Whether the civil works program should be transferred from 
     the Corps to a civilian agency, and whether certain 
     responsibilities should be privatized.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to review this legislation.
  It is my hope that all those who care about the integrity of the Army 
Corps of Engineers and its mission will support this effort to identify 
and implement whatever reforms are necessary to rebuild public support 
for its work.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be 
printed in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2309

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Corps of Engineers Civil 
     Works Independent Investigation and Review Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Corps of 
     Engineers Civil Works Independent Investigation and Review 
     Commission established under section 3(a).
       (2) Session day.--The term ``session day'' means a day on 
     which both Houses of Congress are in session.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall establish a 
     commission to be known as the ``Corps of Engineers Civil 
     Works Independent Investigation and Review Commission''.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of not to 
     exceed 18 members, and shall include--
       (A) individuals appointed by the President to represent--
       (i) the Department of the Army;
       (ii) the Department of the Interior;
       (iii) the Department of Justice;
       (iv) environmental interests;
       (v) hydropower interests;
       (vi) flood control interests;
       (vii) recreational interests;
       (viii) navigation interests;
       (ix) the Council on Environmental Quality; and
       (x) such other affected interests as are determined by the 
     President to be appropriate; and
       (B) 6 governors from States representing different regions 
     of the United States, as determined by the President.
       (2) Date of appointments.--The appointment of a member of 
     the Commission shall be made not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Term; Vacancies.--
       (1) Term.--A member shall be appointed for the life of the 
     Commission.
       (2) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission--
       (A) shall not affect the powers of the Commission; and
       (B) shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment was made.
       (d) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall hold the initial meeting of the 
     Commission.
       (e) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson.
       (f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
     hold hearings.
       (g) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--
       (1) In general.--The President shall select a Chairperson 
     and Vice Chairperson from among the members of the 
     Commission.
       (2) No corps representative.--The Chairperson and the Vice 
     Chairperson shall not be representatives of the Department of 
     the Army (including the Corps of Engineers).

     SEC. 4. INVESTIGATION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Commission shall complete an investigation and 
     submit to Congress a report on the Corps of Engineers, with 
     emphasis on--
       (1) the effectiveness of civilian control over the civil 
     works functions of the Corps of Engineers, particularly the 
     effectiveness of the relationship between uniformed officers 
     and the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
     Civil Works with respect to--
       (A) responsiveness;
       (B) lines of authority; and
       (C) coordination;
       (2) compliance through the civil works functions of the 
     Corps of Engineers with environmental laws in the design and 
     operation of projects, including--
       (A) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 
     et seq.);
       (B) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.); and
       (C) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
       (3) the quality and objectivity of scientific, 
     environmental, and economic analyses by the Corps of 
     Engineers, including the use of independent reviewers of 
     analyses performed by the Corps;
       (4) the extent of coordination and cooperation by the Corps 
     of Engineers with other Federal and State agencies in 
     designing and implementing projects;

[[Page S1825]]

       (5) whether the size of the Corps of Engineers is 
     appropriate, including the size of the budget and personnel 
     of the Corps;
       (6) whether the management structure of the Corps of 
     Engineers should be changed, and, if so, how the management 
     structure should be changed;
       (7) whether any of the civil works functions of the Corps 
     of Engineers should be transferred from the Department of the 
     Army to a civilian agency or should be privatized;
       (8) whether any segments of the inland water system should 
     be closed;
       (9) whether any planning regulations of the Corps of 
     Engineers should be revised to give equal consideration to 
     economic and environmental goals of a project;
       (10) whether any currently-authorized projects should be 
     deauthorized;
       (11) whether all studies conducted by the Corps of 
     Engineers should be subject to independent review; and
       (12) the extent to which the benefits of proposed 
     projects--
       (A) exceed the costs of the projects; or
       (B) accrue to private interests.

     SEC. 5. POWERS.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable 
     to carry out this Act.
       (b) Information From Federal Agencies.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from a 
     Federal department or agency such information as the 
     Commission considers necessary to carry out this Act.
       (2) Provision of information.--On request of the 
     Chairperson of the Commission, the head of the department or 
     agency shall provide the information to the Commission.
       (c) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (d) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or personal property.

     SEC. 6. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--
       (1) Non-federal employees.--A member of the Commission who 
     is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall 
     be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which the member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Commission.
       (2) Federal employees.--A member of the Commission who is 
     an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall serve 
     without compensation in addition to the compensation received 
     for the services of the member as an officer or employee of 
     the Federal Government.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--A member of the Commission shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an agency 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from the home or regular place of business 
     of the member in the performance of the duties of the 
     Commission.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws (including 
     regulations), appoint and terminate an executive director and 
     such other additional personnel as are necessary to enable 
     the Commission to perform the duties of the Commission.
       (2) Confirmation of executive director.--The employment of 
     an executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the 
     Commission.
       (3) Compensation.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the Chairperson of the Commission may fix the compensation of 
     the executive director and other personnel without regard to 
     the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 
     of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of 
     positions and General Schedule pay rates.
       (B) Maximum rate of pay.--The rate of pay for the executive 
     director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable 
     for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (d) Detail of Federal Government Employees.--
       (1) In general.--An employee of the Federal Government may 
     be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement.
       (2) Civil service status.--The detail of the employee shall 
     be without interruption or loss of civil service status or 
     privilege.
       (e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services in accordance with section 3109(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code, at rates for individuals that do 
     not exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic 
     pay prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of that title.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003, 
     to remain available until expended.

     SEC. 8. TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate on the date on which the 
     Commission submits the report to Congress under section 4(a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Helms, and Mr. 
        DeWine):
  S.J. Res. 43. A joint resolution expressing the sense of Congress 
that the President of the United States should encourage free and fair 
elections and respect for democracy in Peru; read the first time.


              support for elections and democracy in Peru

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint 
resolution urging free and fair elections and respect for democratic 
principles in Peru. I join with my colleagues, Senator Leahy, Senator 
Helms, and Senator DeWine to express concern about the transparency and 
fairness of the current electoral campaign in Peru.
  Several independent election monitors have issued distressing reports 
on the conditions surrounding the upcoming April 9 elections in Peru. A 
Carter Center/National Democratic Institute delegation has concluded 
that conditions for a free election campaign have not been established. 
Their report states that ``the electoral environment in Peru is 
characterized by polarization, anxiety and uncertainties . . . 
Irreparable damage to the integrity of the electoral process has 
already been done.'' The Organization of American States (OAS) has come 
to similar conclusions. An OAS special rapporteur recently concluded 
that ``Peru lacks that necessary conditions to guarantee the complete 
exercise of the right to express political ideas that oppose or 
criticize the government.''
  These reports, and others, detail the Peruvian Government's control 
of key official electoral agencies, systematic restrictions on freedom 
of the press, manipulation of the judicial process to stifle 
independent news outlets, and harassment or intimidation of opposition 
politicians--all with the aim of limiting the ability of opposition 
candidates to campaign freely. Such reports raise serious concerns 
about the openness in which the electoral campaign is being conducted 
and whether free and fair elections will actually occur.
  Mr. President, this is a disturbing, though not necessarily 
surprising, trend for a government that already has an inconsistent 
record on democracy and the rule of law. Despite his many 
accomplishments, President Fujimori has often demonstrated little 
respect for democratic principles--his infamous ``auto-coup'', or 
dissolution of Congress, and his current bid for a third Presidential 
term being the best examples. In addition, the current crackdown on 
independent media highlights Peru's dismal record on press freedom 
under Fujimori. Freedom House rates only two countries in the 
Hemisphere, Peru and Cuba, as having a press that is ``not free.'' 
According to Freedom House, since 1992 media outlets have been 
pressured into self-censorship or exile by a government campaign of 
intimidation, abductions, death threats, arbitrary detention, and 
physical mistreatment. The case of Baruch Ivcher is a good example. In 
September 1997, a government-controlled court stripped Ivcher of his 
media business and his Peruvian citizenship after the station ran 
reports linking the military to torture and corruption. In 1998, Ivcher 
was sentenced in absentia to 12 years imprisonment.
  The continued intimidation of journalists, and the lack of truly 
independent judicial and legislative branches threaten democracy and 
the rule of law in Peru. Indeed, Peru, could be said to be undergoing a 
``slow-motion coup.'' Though not under attack in a violent or 
conspicuous manner, democracy and the rule of law in Peru are 
increasingly in question.
  Mr. President, if one considers the incredible spread of democracy 
around the world over the last century, and in particular over the last 
twenty years, such a development is indeed disturbing. Consider the 
following: according to Freedom House, of the 192 sovereign states in 
existence today, 119 of them are considered true democracies. In 1950, 
just 22 countries were democracies, meaning that nearly 100 nations 
have made the transition over this half century. Nowhere was there a 
more dramatic change than in our own back yard. In 1981, 18 of the 33 
nations in the hemisphere were under some

[[Page S1826]]

form of authoritarian rule. By the beginning of the 1990's, all but 
one--Castro's Cuba--had freely elected heads of state.
  Despite these gains, freedom in the hemisphere remains fragile and 
uncertain--Peru being just one example. After 7 years of neglect by the 
current administration, some of the hard-fought victories for freedom 
in Latin America are weakened and in jeopardy. There is no doubt that 
if the elections are not deemed to be free and fair, it will represent 
a major setback for the people of Peru and for democracy in the 
hemisphere.
  Mr. President, we must recommit ourselves to nurturing and protecting 
the gains of freedom around the world, but with great attention on our 
own hemisphere. A message must be sent to President Fujimori that if 
democratic processes are not respected, their economic and diplomatic 
relations will suffer. This message should be unanimous from every 
nation in the region, and not just from the United States. A breach of 
democracy, especially in this hemisphere, must not be allowed to stand.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the joint resolution be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 43

       Whereas presidential and congressional elections are 
     scheduled to occur in Peru on April 9, 2000;
       Whereas independent election monitors have expressed grave 
     doubts about the fairness of the electoral process due to the 
     Peruvian Government's control of key official electoral 
     agencies, systematic restrictions on freedom of the press, 
     manipulation of the judicial processes to stifle independent 
     reporting on radio, television, and newspaper outlets, and 
     harassment and intimidation of opposition politicians, which 
     have greatly limited the ability of opposing candidates to 
     campaign freely; and
       Whereas the absence of free and fair elections in Peru 
     would constitute a major setback for the Peruvian people and 
     for democracy in the hemisphere, could result in instability 
     in Peru, and could jeopardize United States antinarcotics 
     objectives in Peru and the region: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That it 
     is the sense of Congress that the President of the United 
     States should promptly convey to the President of Peru that 
     if the April 9, 2000 elections are not deemed by the 
     international community to have been free and fair, the 
     United States will modify its political and economic 
     relations with Peru, including its support for international 
     financial institution loans to Peru, and will work with other 
     democracies in this hemisphere and elsewhere toward a 
     restoration of democracy in Peru.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am joining Senators Coverdell, 
DeWine and Helms in introducing a Joint Resolution regarding the 
presidential and congressional elections in Peru, which are scheduled 
for April 9. I want to thank the other sponsors for their leadership 
and concern for these issues.
  These elections have generated a great deal of attention and 
anticipation, and they have also focused a spotlight on President 
Fujimori, who is running for an unprecedented third term. He is doing 
so after firing three of the country's Supreme Court judges, who had 
determined that a third term was barred by Peru's Constitution.
  President Fujimori has often been praised for what he has 
accomplished since he first took office in 1990. He success in 
defeating the brutal Sendero Luminoso insurgency, combating cocaine 
trafficking, and curbing soaring inflation has brought stability and 
greater economic opportunities.
  These are important achievements. Unfortunately, they have often been 
accomplished through the strong arm tactics of a president who has 
shown a disturbing willingness to run roughshod over democratic 
principles and institutions.
  In the run up to the April 9th election, President Fujimori's and his 
supporter's disrespect for democratic procedures and the conditions 
necessary for free and fair elections has rarely been so blatant.
  Journalists and independent election observer groups cite the 
Peruvian Government's control of key official electoral agencies, 
systematic restrictions on freedom of the press, manipulation of the 
judicial process, alleged falsification of electoral petitions and 
harassment and intimidation of opposition politicians as just a few of 
the problems plaguing this process.
  In February, the National Democratic Institute and the Carter Center 
concluded that ``extraordinary, immediate and comprehensive measures'' 
were necessary if the Peruvian elections are to meet international 
standards. Those measures have not been taken, and NDI and the Carter 
Center recently reported that ``irreparable damage to the integrity of 
the election process has already been done.'' The Clinton 
administration, to its credit, has expressed grave concerns about the 
transparent attempts by President Fujimori and his supporters to 
manipulate the election process.
  Mr. President, the results of the Peruvian elections will not be 
known until the final ballot is counted. But one thing is already 
clear. If the elections are not deemed to have been free and fair, it 
will be a major setback for the Peruvian people and for democracy in 
the hemisphere. And if that happens, the United States must react 
strongly. We will have no choice but to modify our economic and 
political relations with Peru, and work to restore democracy to that 
country.
  That is the message of this resolution, and I urge other Senators to 
support it so we can send as strong a message as possible to President 
Fujimori and the Peruvian people.
  Mr. President, I also want to take this opportunity to mention 
another matter that has caused me and other Members of Congress great 
concern. The Peruvian Government recently brought to the United States 
a former Peruvian Army intelligence officer who was responsible for 
torturing a woman who was left permanently paralyzed as a result. He 
was convicted in Peru, but released after a military tribunal reversed 
his conviction. For reasons that I have yet to get a suitable answer 
to, the U.S. Embassy granted him a visa to come to the United States to 
testify at a hearing before the Inter-American Human Rights Commission. 
That was bad enough. But the fact that the Peruvian Government saw fit 
to include such a person in its official delegation to appear as a 
witness in a human rights forum says a great deal about that 
government, and it should be condemned.
  Finally, I want to express my personal concern about Lori Berenson, 
who was convicted by a Peruvian military court and sentenced to life in 
prison. The United States Government, other governments, Amnesty 
International and other independent human rights groups, have all 
concluded that she was denied due process. I and others have called for 
her release or trial by a civilian court in accordance with 
international standards. Innocent or guilty, every person deserves a 
fair trial, and I would hope that a country that professes to respect 
human rights would recognize the obvious--that Ms. Berenson's 
conviction was a miscarriage of justice.

                          ____________________