[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 29, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1884-S1913]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 2310. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, 
with respect to penalties for licensed firearms dealers; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


            firearms dealer penalty flexibility act of 2000

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the 
first in a series of several bills I will be proposing to provide law 
enforcement with the tools they need to enforce our current gun laws.

  Let me be clear--I do believe that our current laws need to be 
enhanced. Too many loopholes allow too many criminals to circumvent the 
laws already in place. To that end, I will continue to work on 
legislation to further restrict criminals' access to deadly firearms.
  But it is also clear that we can do better in enforcing the laws 
already on the books. As a result, today I am proposing legislation 
that will tighten up the enforcement of our current laws. The 
legislation I have sent to the desk, the Firearms Dealer Penalty 
Flexibility Act of 2000, will provide the Treasury Department, and the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the ability to punish dealers 
according to the severity of their crimes.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, and I hope the 
National Rifle Association is listening, too. It is time for that 
organization to stop just talking about enforcing our current gun laws, 
and to start supporting legislation to help in that process. So today I 
challenge the NRA to support this bill and others like it. For too 
long, opponents of gun control have talked about enforcement, while at 
the same time working to tie the hands of those that enforce the laws. 
It is time to move forward.
  Now let me describe just what this legislation would accomplish.
  Mr. President, under current law there exists only one penalty for 
firearms dealers who violate the law--revocation of their license. If a 
dealer violates the law, the ATF is left with only two options--
permanently revoke the dealer's license, or do nothing.
  The problem, of course, is that not every violation merits the 
permanent revocation of a dealer's license. The current law is like 
having the death penalty for every crime--from jaywalking to murder. We 
have graduated sanctions in the criminal law because different crimes 
merit different punishment.
  In most instances, the ATF is understandably reluctant to destroy a 
dealer's livelihood--and the dealers know this. As a result, thousands 
of violations every year go unpunished.
  Last year, ATF conducted 11,234 examinations, and reported 3,863 
violations.
  Yet only 20 licenses were actually revoked.
  Almost 4,000 violations, just 20 revocations.
  And this may have actually been the appropriate response. Again, not 
every violation is deserving of revocation. Many of these dealers are 
simply businessmen, who may have made one or two simple mistakes. 
Taking away their livelihood would be inappropriately harsh.
  But at the same time, ATF has informed me that there are other 
dealers out there who are taking advantage of the current system. These 
dealers know that if they commit a violation, they probably won't even 
get caught--after all, with more than 100,000 dealers and only a few 
hundred inspectors, the odds of catching a dealer in the act are slim. 
And even worse than that, these dealers know that even if they are 
caught, and even if ATF does discover a violation or even a pattern of 
violations, it is very unlikely that anything will be done.
  According to ATF, only the most egregious or repeat offenders are 
punished.
  Mr. President, it was clearly not the intent of Congress when passing 
laws to regulate firearms dealers in this country that dealers would be 
effectively immune from those laws.
  The current situation leaves law enforcement with little choice--if 
ATF revokes the license of every dealer that commits a minor violation, 
the NRA would be up in arms. But if they do the right thing under 
current law and allow dealers to stay in business, they are criticized 
for failing to enforce the current law.
  Well the bill I propose today would put an end to this quandary, and 
allow

[[Page S1885]]

the Treasury Department to impose the proper, proportionate penalties 
for the variety of violations currently on the books.

  Specifically, this legislation, supported by the Administration, 
would do the following:
  For willful violations of the law, this legislation would allow the 
Treasury Department to suspend or revoke a dealer's license, or to 
assess a fine of up to $10,000 per violation;
  Those same penalties would be available for any dealer who willfully 
transfers armor piercing ammunition;
  The legislation allows the Treasury Department to negotiate a 
compromise with a dealer at any time;
  And the legislation outlines some clear, procedural protections for 
dealers--
  A right to notice and opportunity for a hearing before any action is 
taken, so that the dealer may be made aware of the charges and seek to 
avert the action;
  A right to written notice of any action taken, including the grounds 
upon which the action was based;
  A right to a prompt hearing after a penalty is assessed, during which 
time the dealer can contest the outcome. This hearing must even be held 
at a location convenient to the dealer;
  If the second hearing is not fruitful, the dealer has an additional 
right to appeal the decision of the Department to federal court, during 
which time any action is stayed.
  Mr. President, these procedural safeguards prevent an aggressive 
agent from pursuing unfair penalties. There are at least three clear 
opportunities for an aggrieved dealer to make his or her case, 
including the right to appeal any decision to federal court.
  As a result, I believe that this bill gives law abiding firearms 
dealers every opportunity necessary to protect themselves against 
unwarranted claims.
  At the same time, this bill provides law enforcement with the variety 
of sanctions necessary to force true compliance with the laws already 
on the books. No more will rogue dealers flout the law knowing that no 
viable recourse is available to law enforcement.
  Once this legislation passes, the punishment will finally fit the 
crime.
  Mr. President, again I challenge the NRA and my colleagues to join me 
in moving this bill forward. We cannot continue to allow miscreant gun 
dealers to ignore the laws passed by this Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Frist, Mr. Hatch, 
        Mr. Dodd, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
        Wellstone, Mr. Reed and Mr. Biden):
  S. 2311. A bill to revise and extend the Ryan White CARE Act programs 
under title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, to improve access to 
health care and the quality of health care under such programs, and to 
provide for the development of increased capacity to provide health 
care and related support services to individuals and families with HIV 
disease, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.


                 ryan white care act amendments of 2000

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join my 
colleagues today in introducing the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS 
Resources and Emergency Act Amendments of 2000; a measure that will 
reauthorize a national program of providing primary health care 
services for people living with HIV and AIDS. I especially want to 
commend Senators Hatch and Kennedy for the leadership they have 
provided since the inauguration of the legislation establishing the 
Ryan White programs over a decade ago. I also want to commend Senator 
Frist whose medical expertise played a critical role in key provisions 
of the bill and continues to be an invaluable resource to our efforts 
on the range of health issues that come before the Senate. Finally, I 
want to acknowledge Senator Enzi's recognition of the growing burden 
that AIDS and HIV is having on rural communities throughout the country 
and the need to address those gaps in services.

  Since its inception in 1990, the Ryan White program has enjoyed broad 
bipartisan support. When I looked back to the last time the Ryan White 
CARE Act was reauthorized in 1996, I was heartened to see that the 
measure had garnered a vote of 97 to 3 on its final passage. I urge my 
colleagues to examine this bill we are introducing today and to join me 
in working toward its passage.
  With this reauthorization, we mark the ten years through which the 
Ryan White CARE Act has provided needed health care and support 
services to HIV positive people around the country. Titles I and II 
have provided much needed relief to cities and states hardest hit by 
this disease, while Titles III and IV have had a direct role in 
providing healthcare services to underserved communities. Ryan White 
program dollars provide the foundation of care so necessary in fighting 
this epidemic.
  Fortunately, we have experienced significant success over the last 
decade, and especially over the last five years. The General Accounting 
Office recently released a report that found that CARE Act funds are 
reaching the infected groups that have generally been found to be 
underserved, including the poor, the uninsured, women, and ethnic 
minorities. In fact, these groups form a majority of CARE Act clients 
and are being served by the CARE Act in higher proportions than their 
representation in the AIDS population. The GAO also found that CARE Act 
funds support a wide array of primary care and support services, 
including the provision of powerful therapeutic regimens for people 
with HIV/AIDS that have dramatically reduced AIDS diagnoses and deaths.
  Mr. President, there have also been successes in the reduction of 
HIV/AIDS among women, infants and children. During the last 
reauthorization, Congressman Coburn and our colleague, Senator Frist, 
focused our attention on the needs of women living with HIV/AIDS and 
the problems associated with perinatal transmission of HIV. Since then, 
the CARE Act has helped to dramatically reduce mother-to-child 
transmission through more effective outreach, counseling, and 
voluntary testing of mothers at risk for HIV infection. Between 1993 
and 1998, perinatal-acquired AIDS cases declined 74% in the U.S. In 
this bill, I have continued to support efforts to reach women in need 
of care for their HIV disease and have included provisions to ensure 
that women, infants and children receive resources in accordance with 
the prevalence of the infection among them.

  Another key success has been the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. New 
therapies and improved systems of care have led to impressive 
reductions in the AIDS death rate and the number of new AIDS cases. 
From 1996 to 1998, deaths from AIDS dropped 54% while new AIDS cases 
have been reduced by 27%. However, these treatments are very expensive, 
do not provide a cure, and do not work for everyone.
  Much has occurred to change the course of the AIDS epidemic since the 
last reauthorization. A whole new class of therapeutic drugs called 
anti-retrovirals have been developed and people are living longer and 
the rate of increase of the number of new AIDS cases has begun to level 
off. AIDS, HIV, the people it infects and families that it has affected 
are not in the news today as often as they have been in the past. But 
for too many of us, this lack of bad news has created a false sense of 
complacency. The epidemic of HIV continues to grow, to infect whole new 
groups of people, and to expand both within our urban areas and beyond 
to our rural communities.
  While the rate of decline in new AIDS cases and AIDS deaths is 
leveling off, HIV infection rates continue to rise in many areas; 
becoming increasingly prevalent in rural and underserved urban areas; 
and also among women, youth, and minority communities. Local and state 
healthcare systems face an increasing burden of disease, despite our 
success in treating and caring for people living with HIV and AIDS. 
Unfortunately, rural and underserved urban areas are often unable to 
address the complex medical and support services needs of people with 
HIV infection.
  The bill being introduced today was developed on a bipartisan basis, 
working with other Committee Members, community stakeholders and 
elected officials at the state and local levels from whom we sought 
input to ensure that we addressed the most important

[[Page S1886]]

problems facing communities of people with HIV infection. Earlier this 
month, I held a hearing before the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions to learn whether the program has been successful 
and whether it needed to be changed. We received testimony from Ryan 
White's mother, Jeanne White, from Surgeon General David Satcher, from 
a person living with AIDS, as well as state and local officials 
familiar with the importance of this program. I especially want to 
commend Dr. Chris Grace of Vermont who testified as to the particular 
challenges of providing care to people living with HIV/AIDS in rural, 
and sometimes remote, parts of the country. It was clear from our 
witnesses' statements that, despite the successes, challenges remain.
  To address these challenges, we have developed a bill that will 
improve access to care in underserved urban and rural areas. My bill 
will double the minimum base funding available to states through the 
CARE Act to assist them in developing systems of care for people 
struggling with HIV and AIDS. The bill also includes a new supplemental 
state grant that will target assistance to rural and underserved areas 
to help them address the increasing number of people with HIV/AIDS 
living outside of urban areas that receive assistance under Title I of 
the Act. Furthermore, these areas will be given preference for direct 
care grants and we have strengthened the AIDS Drug Assistance Program 
to supplement those states struggling to provide lifesaving drugs to 
their HIV/AIDS patients.
  We have not changed the unique flexibility of CARE Act programs; it 
remains primarily a system of grants to State and local jurisdictions. 
States and EMAs will still decide how to best prioritize and address 
the healthcare needs of their HIV-positive citizens.
  Today, there are few people who can say they have not been touched by 
this epidemic. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit with Jeanne 
White. We talked about the impact of this disease; about the loved ones 
it has taken, and the damage to the lives of those it has left behind--
about the infected, and about the affected. We talked about her son 
Ryan, and about my good friend David Curtis of Burlington, Vermont, who 
testified before my committee in 1995, but who passed away just last 
year. As an advocate of the program and as a person living with AIDS, 
David helped me to understand the terrible impact of this disease. Ryan 
White and David and countless others, worked long and hard to ensure 
that all people affected by AIDS could receive both the care and 
compassion they deserve.
  The AIDS epidemic, despite our success in developing treatments and 
providing systems of care, is still ravaging communities in this 
country. This program remains as vital to the public health of this 
nation as it was in 1990 and in 1996. As the AIDS epidemic reaches into 
rural areas and into underserved urban communities across the country, 
this legislation being introduced today will allow us to adapt our care 
systems to meet the most urgent needs in the communities hardest hit by 
the epidemic.
  I intend to see this bill become law this year so that the people 
struggling to overcome the challenges of HIV and AIDS continue to 
benefit from high quality medical care and access to lifesaving drugs. 
We have made incredible progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS and I 
want to be sure that every person in America that needs our assistance, 
benefits from our tremendous advances.
  Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of this measure 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2311

       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 ``Ryan White CARE Act 
     Amendments of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, 
     whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in 
     terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other 
     provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.).
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. References; table of contents.

             TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO HIV HEALTH CARE PROGRAM

  Subtitle A--Purpose; Amendments to Part A (Emergency Relief Grants)

Sec. 101. Duties of planning council, funding priorities, quality 
              assessment.
Sec. 102. Quality management.
Sec. 103. Funded entities required to have health care relationships.
Sec. 104. Support services required to be health care-related.
Sec. 105. Use of grant funds for early intervention services.
Sec. 106. Replacement of specified fiscal years regarding the sunset on 
              expedited distribution requirement.
Sec. 107. Hold harmless provision.
Sec. 108. Set-aside for infants, children, and women.

         Subtitle B--Amendments to Part B (Care Grant Program)

Sec. 121. State requirements concerning identification of need and 
              allocation of resources.
Sec. 122. Quality management.
Sec. 123. Funded entities required to have health care referral 
              relationships.
Sec. 124. Support services required to be health care-related.
Sec. 125. Use of grant funds for early intervention services.
Sec. 126. Authorization of appropriations for HIV-related services for 
              women and children.
Sec. 127. Repeal of requirement for completed Institute of Medicine 
              report.
Sec. 130. Supplement grants for certain States.
Sec. 131. Use of treatment funds.
Sec. 132. Increase in minimum allotment.
Sec. 133. Set-aside for infants, children, and women.

     Subtitle C--Amendments to Part C (Early Intervention Services)

Sec. 141. Amendment of heading; repeal of formula grant program.
Sec. 142. Planning and development grants.
Sec. 143. Authorization of appropriations for categorical grants.
Sec. 144. Administrative expenses ceiling; quality management program.
Sec. 145. Preference for certain areas.

         Subtitle D--Amendments to Part D (General Provisions)

Sec. 151. Research involving women, infants, children, and youth.
Sec. 152. Limitation on administrative expenses.
Sec. 153. Evaluations and reports.
Sec. 154. Authorization of appropriations for grants under parts A and 
              B.

     Subtitle E--Amendments to Part F (Demonstration and Training)

Sec. 161. Authorization of appropriations.

                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Institute of Medicine study.

             TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO HIV HEALTH CARE PROGRAM

  Subtitle A--Purpose; Amendments to Part A (Emergency Relief Grants)

     SEC. 101. DUTIES OF PLANNING COUNCIL, FUNDING PRIORITIES, 
                   QUALITY ASSESSMENT.

       Section 2602 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-12) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(C), by inserting before the semicolon 
     the following: ``, including providers of housing and 
     homeless services''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``shall--'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``shall have the responsibilities 
     specified in subsection (d).''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Duties of Planning Council.--The planning council 
     established under subsection (b) shall have the following 
     duties:
       ``(1) Priorities for allocation of funds.--The council 
     shall establish priorities for the allocation of funds within 
     the eligible area, including how best to meet each such 
     priority and additional factors that a grantee should 
     consider in allocating funds under a grant, based on the 
     following factors:
       ``(A) The size and demographic characteristics of the 
     population with HIV disease to be served, including, subject 
     to subsection (e), the needs of individuals living with HIV 
     infection who are not receiving HIV-related health services.
       ``(B) The documented needs of the population with HIV 
     disease with particular attention being given to disparities 
     in health services among affected subgroups within the 
     eligible area.
       ``(C) The demonstrated or probable cost and outcome 
     effectiveness of proposed strategies and interventions, to 
     the extent that data are reasonably available.
       ``(D) Priorities of the communities with HIV disease for 
     whom the services are intended.
       ``(E) The availability of other governmental and non-
     governmental resources, including the State medicaid plan 
     under title XIX of the Social Security Act and the State 
     Children's Health Insurance Program under title XXI of such 
     Act to cover health care costs of eligible individuals and 
     families with HIV disease.

[[Page S1887]]

       ``(F) Capacity development needs resulting from gaps in the 
     availability of HIV services in historically underserved low-
     income communities.
       ``(2) Comprehensive service delivery plan.--The council 
     shall develop a comprehensive plan for the organization and 
     delivery of health and support services described in section 
     2604. Such plan shall be compatible with any existing State 
     or local plans regarding the provision of such services to 
     individuals with HIV disease.
       ``(3) Assessment of fund allocation efficiency.--The 
     council shall assess the efficiency of the administrative 
     mechanism in rapidly allocating funds to the areas of 
     greatest need within the eligible area.
       ``(4) Statewide statement of need.--The council shall 
     participate in the development of the Statewide coordinated 
     statement of need as initiated by the State public health 
     agency responsible for administering grants under part B.
       ``(5) Coordination with other federal grantees.--The 
     council shall coordinate with Federal grantees providing HIV-
     related services within the eligible area.
       ``(6) Community participation.--The council shall establish 
     methods for obtaining input on community needs and priorities 
     which may include public meetings, conducting focus groups, 
     and convening ad-hoc panels.
       ``(e) Process for Establishing Allocation Priorities.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 24 months after the date 
     of enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000, 
     the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) consult with eligible metropolitan areas, affected 
     communities, experts, and other appropriate individuals and 
     entities, to develop epidemiologic measures for establishing 
     the number of individuals living with HIV disease who are not 
     receiving HIV-related health services; and
       ``(B) provide advice and technical assistance to planning 
     councils with respect to the process for establishing 
     priorities for the allocation of funds under subsection 
     (d)(1).
       ``(2) Exception.--Grantees under subsection (d)(1)(A) shall 
     not be required to establish priorities for individuals not 
     in care until epidemiologic measures are developed under 
     paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 102. QUALITY MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Funds Available for Quality Management.--Section 2604 
     (42 U.S.C. 300ff-14) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as 
     subsections (d) through (g), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Quality Management.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--The chief elected official of an 
     eligible area that receives a grant under this part shall 
     provide for the establishment of a quality management program 
     to assess the extent to which medical services provided to 
     patients under the grant are consistent with the most recent 
     Public Health Service guidelines for the treatment of HIV 
     disease and related opportunistic infection and to develop 
     strategies for improvements in the access to and quality of 
     medical services.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--From amounts received under a grant 
     awarded under this part, the chief elected official of an 
     eligible area may use, for activities associated with its 
     quality management program, not more than the lesser of--
       ``(A) 5 percent of amounts received under the grant; or
       ``(B) $3,000,000.''.
       (b) Quality Management Required for Eligibility for 
     Grants.--Section 2605(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as 
     paragraphs (5) through (8), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) that the chief elected official of the eligible area 
     will satisfy all requirements under section 2604(c);''.

     SEC. 103. FUNDED ENTITIES REQUIRED TO HAVE HEALTH CARE 
                   RELATIONSHIPS.

       (a) Use of Amounts.--Section 2604(e)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
     14(d)(1)) (as so redesignated by section 102(a)) is amended 
     by inserting ``and the State Children's Health Insurance 
     Program under title XXI of such Act'' after ``Social Security 
     Act''.
       (b) Applications.--Section 2605(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a)) 
     is amended by inserting after paragraph (3), as added by 
     section 102(b), the following:
       ``(4) that funded entities within the eligible area that 
     receive funds under a grant under section 2601(a) shall 
     maintain appropriate relationships with entities in the area 
     served that constitute key points of access to the health 
     care system for individuals with HIV disease (including 
     emergency rooms, substance abuse treatment programs, 
     detoxification centers, adult and juvenile detention 
     facilities, sexually transmitted disease clinics, HIV 
     counseling and testing sites, and homeless shelters) and 
     other entities under section 2652(a) for the purpose of 
     facilitating early intervention for individuals newly 
     diagnosed with HIV disease and individuals knowledgeable of 
     their status but not in care;''.

     SEC. 104. SUPPORT SERVICES REQUIRED TO BE HEALTH CARE-
                   RELATED.

       (a) In General.--Section 2604(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
     14(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``HIV-related--'' and inserting ``HIV-related services, as 
     follows:'';
       (2) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``outpatient'' and all that follows through 
     ``substance abuse treatment and'' and inserting the 
     following: ``Outpatient health services.--Outpatient and 
     ambulatory health services, including substance abuse 
     treatment,''; and
       (B) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period;
       (3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(B) inpatient case 
     management'' and inserting ``(C) Inpatient case management 
     services.--Inpatient case management''; and
       (4) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) Outpatient support services.--Outpatient and 
     ambulatory support services (including case management), to 
     the extent that such services facilitate, enhance, support, 
     or sustain the delivery, continuity, or benefits of health 
     services for individuals and families with HIV disease.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment to Application Requirements.--
     Section 2605(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a)), as amended by 
     section 102(b), is further amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``and'' at the end thereof;
       (2) in paragraph (7) (as so redesignated), by striking the 
     period and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) that the eligible area has procedures in place to 
     ensure that services provided with funds received under this 
     part meet the criteria specified in section 2604(b)(1).''.

     SEC. 105. USE OF GRANT FUNDS FOR EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Section 2604(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
     14(b)(1)), as amended by section 104(a), is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Early intervention services.--Early intervention 
     services as described in section 2651(b)(2), with follow-
     through referral, provided for the purpose of facilitating 
     the access of individuals receiving the services to HIV-
     related health services, but only if the entity providing 
     such services--
       ``(i)(I) is receiving funds under subparagraph (A) or (C); 
     or
       ``(II) is an entity constituting a point of access to 
     services, as described in paragraph (2)(C), that maintains a 
     relationship with an entity described in subclause (I) and 
     that is serving individuals at elevated risk of HIV disease; 
     and
       ``(ii) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the chief 
     elected official that no other Federal, State, or local funds 
     are available for the early intervention services the entity 
     will provide with funds received under this paragraph.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments to Application Requirements.--
     Section 2605(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``services to 
     individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting ``services as 
     described in section 2604(b)(1)''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``services for 
     individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting ``services as 
     described in section 2604(b)(1)''.

     SEC. 106. REPLACEMENT OF SPECIFIED FISCAL YEARS REGARDING THE 
                   SUNSET ON EXPEDITED DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 2603(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(a)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``for each of the fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' 
     and inserting ``for a fiscal year''.

     SEC. 107. HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION.

       Section 2603(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(a)(4)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(4) Limitations.--
       ``(A) In general.--With respect to each of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2005, the Secretary shall ensure that the amount 
     of a grant made to an eligible area under paragraph (2) for 
     such a fiscal year is not less than an amount equal to 98 
     percent of the amount the eligible area received for the 
     fiscal year preceding the year for which the determination is 
     being made.
       ``(B) Application of provision.--Subparagraph (A) shall 
     only apply with respect to those eligible areas receiving a 
     grant under paragraph (2) for fiscal year 2000 in an amount 
     that has been adjusted in accordance with paragraph (4) of 
     this subsection (as in effect on the day before the date of 
     enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000).''.

     SEC. 108. SET-ASIDE FOR INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND WOMEN.

       Section 2604(b)(3) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-14(b)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``for each population under this 
     subsection'' after ``established priorities''; and
       (2) by striking ``ratio of the'' and inserting ``ratio of 
     each''.

         Subtitle B--Amendments to Part B (Care Grant Program)

     SEC. 121. STATE REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING IDENTIFICATION OF 
                   NEED AND ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES.

       (a) General Use of Grants.--Section 2612 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
     22) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``A State'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--A State''; and
       (2) in the matter following paragraph (5)--
       (A) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a)(2) and section 2613'';
       (b) Application.--Section 2617(b) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b)) 
     is amended--

[[Page S1888]]

       (1) in paragraph (1)(C)--
       (A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) the size and demographic characteristics of the 
     population with HIV disease to be served, except that by not 
     later than October 1, 2002, the State shall take into account 
     the needs of individuals not in care, based on epidemiologic 
     measures developed by the Secretary in consultation with the 
     State, affected communities, experts, and other appropriate 
     individuals (such State shall not be required to establish 
     priorities for individuals not in care until such 
     epidemiologic measures are developed);'';
       (B) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) the availability of other governmental and non-
     governmental resources;
       ``(vi) the capacity development needs resulting in gaps in 
     the provision of HIV services in historically underserved 
     low-income and rural low-income communities; and
       ``(vii) the efficiency of the administrative mechanism in 
     rapidly allocating funds to the areas of greatest need within 
     the State;''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (F); 
     and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (B), the following:
       ``(C) an assurance that capacity development needs 
     resulting from gaps in the provision of services in 
     underserved low-income and rural low-income communities will 
     be addressed; and
       ``(D) with respect to fiscal year 2003 and subsequent 
     fiscal years, assurances that, in the planning and allocation 
     of resources, the State, through systems of HIV-related 
     health services provided under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) 
     of section 2612(a), will make appropriate provision for the 
     HIV-related health and support service needs of individuals 
     who have been diagnosed with HIV disease but who are not 
     currently receiving such services, based on the epidemiologic 
     measures developed under paragraph (1)(C)(i);''.

     SEC. 122. QUALITY MANAGEMENT.

       (a) State Requirement for Quality Management.--Section 
     2617(b)(4) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b)(4)) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) the State will provide for--
       ``(i) the establishment of a quality management program to 
     assess the extent to which medical services provided to 
     patients under the grant are consistent with the most recent 
     Public Health Service guidelines for the treatment of HIV 
     disease and related opportunistic infections and to develop 
     strategies for improvements in the access to and quality of 
     medical services; and
       ``(ii) a periodic review (such as through an independent 
     peer review) to assess the quality and appropriateness of 
     HIV-related health and support services provided by entities 
     that receive funds from the State under this part;'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as 
     subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (D), the following:
       ``(E) an assurance that the State, through systems of HIV-
     related health services provided under paragraphs (1), (2), 
     and (3) of section 2612(a), has considered strategies for 
     working with providers to make optimal use of financial 
     assistance under the State medicaid plan under title XIX of 
     the Social Security Act, the State Children's Health 
     Insurance Program under title XXI of such Act, and other 
     Federal grantees that provide HIV-related services, to 
     maximize access to quality HIV-related health and support 
     services;
       (4) in subparagraph (F), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``and'' at the end; and
       (5) in subparagraph (G), as so redesignated, by striking 
     the period and inserting ``; and''.
       (b) Availability of Funds for Quality Management.--
       (1) Availability of grant funds for planning and 
     evaluation.--Section 2618(c)(3) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-28(c)(3)) is 
     amended by inserting before the period ``, including not more 
     than $3,000,000 for all activities associated with its 
     quality management program''.
       (2) Exception to combined ceiling on planning and 
     administration funds for states with small grants.--Paragraph 
     (6) of section 2618(c) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-28(c)(6)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(6) Exception for quality management.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (5), a State whose grant under this part for a 
     fiscal year does not exceed $1,500,000 may use not to exceed 
     20 percent of the amount of the grant for the purposes 
     described in paragraphs (3) and (4) if--
       ``(A) that portion of such amount in excess of 15 percent 
     of the grant is used for its quality management program; and
       ``(B) the State submits and the Secretary approves a plan 
     (in such form and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may prescribe) for use of funds for its quality 
     management program.''.

     SEC. 123. FUNDED ENTITIES REQUIRED TO HAVE HEALTH CARE 
                   RELATIONSHIPS.

       Section 2617(b)(4) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b)(4)), as amended 
     by section 122(a), is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(H) that funded entities maintain appropriate 
     relationships with entities in the area served that 
     constitute key points of access to the health care system for 
     individuals with HIV disease (including emergency rooms, 
     substance abuse treatment programs, detoxification centers, 
     adult and juvenile detention facilities, sexually transmitted 
     disease clinics, HIV counseling and testing sites, and 
     homeless shelters), and other entities under section 2652(a), 
     for the purpose of facilitating early intervention for 
     individuals newly diagnosed with HIV disease and individuals 
     knowledgeable of their status but not in care.''.

     SEC. 124. SUPPORT SERVICES REQUIRED TO BE HEALTH CARE-
                   RELATED.

       (a) Technical amendment.--Section 3(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the 
     Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 1996 (Public Law 104-146) 
     is amended by inserting ``before paragraph (2) as so 
     redesignated'' after ``inserting''.
       (b) Services.--Section 2612(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
     22(a)(1)), as so designated by section 121(a), is amended by 
     striking ``for individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting 
     ``, subject to the conditions and limitations that apply 
     under such section''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment to State Application 
     Requirement.--Section 2617(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b)(2)), 
     as amended by section 121(b), is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(F) an assurance that the State has procedures in place 
     to ensure that services provided with funds received under 
     this section meet the criteria specified in section 
     2604(b)(1)(B); and''.

     SEC. 125. USE OF GRANT FUNDS FOR EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.

       Section 2612(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-22(a)), as amended by 
     section 121, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(6) Early intervention services.--The State, through 
     systems of HIV-related health services provided under 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 2612(a), may provide 
     early intervention services, as described in section 
     2651(b)(2), with follow-up referral, provided for the purpose 
     of facilitating the access of individuals receiving the 
     services to HIV-related health services, but only if the 
     entity providing such services--
       ``(A)(i) is receiving funds under section 2612(a)(1); or
       ``(ii) is an entity constituting a point of access to 
     services, as described in section 2617(b)(4), that maintains 
     a referral relationship with an entity described in clause 
     (i) and that is serving individuals at elevated risk of HIV 
     disease; and
       ``(B) demonstrates to the State's satisfaction that no 
     other Federal, State, or local funds are available for the 
     early intervention services the entity will provide with 
     funds received under this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 126. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HIV-RELATED 
                   SERVICES FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

       Section 2625(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-33(c)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' and inserting 
     ``fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.

     SEC. 127. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR COMPLETED INSTITUTE OF 
                   MEDICINE REPORT.

       Section 2628 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-36) is repealed.

     SEC. 128. SUPPLEMENT GRANTS FOR CERTAIN STATES.

       Subpart I of part B of title XXVI of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-11 et seq.) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 2622. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award supplemental 
     grants to States determined to be eligible under subsection 
     (b) to enable such States to provide comprehensive services 
     of the type described in section 2612(a) to supplement the 
     services otherwise provided by the State under a grant under 
     this subpart in areas within the State that are not eligible 
     to receive grants under part A.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a 
     supplemental grant under subsection (a) a State shall--
       ``(1) be eligible to receive a grant under this subpart; 
     and
       ``(2) demonstrate to the Secretary that there is severe 
     need (as defined for purposes of section 2603(b)(2)(A) for 
     supplemental financial assistance in areas in the State that 
     are not served through grants under part A.
       ``(c) Application.--A State that desires a grant under this 
     section shall, as part of the State application submitted 
     under section 2617, submit a detailed description of the 
     manner in which the State will use amounts received under the 
     grant and of the severity of need. Such description shall 
     include--
       ``(1) a report concerning the dissemination of supplemental 
     funds under this section and the plan for the utilization of 
     such funds;
       ``(2) a demonstration of the existing commitment of local 
     resources, both financial and in-kind;
       ``(3) a demonstration that the State will maintain HIV-
     related activities at a level that is equal to not less than 
     the level of such activities in the State for the 1-year 
     period preceding the fiscal year for which the State is 
     applying to receive a grant under this part;
       ``(4) a demonstration of the ability of the State to 
     utilize such supplemental financial resources in a manner 
     that is immediately responsive and cost effective;
       ``(5) a demonstration that the resources will be allocated 
     in accordance with the local demographic incidence of AIDS 
     including appropriate allocations for services for

[[Page S1889]]

     infants, children, women, and families with HIV disease;
       ``(6) a demonstration of the inclusiveness of the planning 
     process, with particular emphasis on affected communities and 
     individuals with HIV disease; and
       ``(7) a demonstration of the manner in which the proposed 
     services are consistent with local needs assessments and the 
     statewide coordinated statement of need.
       ``(d) Amount Reserved for Emerging Communities.--
       ``(1) In general.--For awarding grants under this section 
     for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve the greater 
     of 50 percent of the amount to be utilized under subsection 
     (e) for such fiscal year or $5,000,000, to be provided to 
     States that contain emerging communities for use in such 
     communities.
       ``(2) Definition.--In paragraph (1), the term `emerging 
     community' means a metropolitan area--
       ``(A) that is not eligible for a grant under part A; and
       ``(B) for which there has been reported to the Director of 
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention a cumulative 
     total of between 1000 and 1999 cases of acquired immune 
     deficiency syndrome for the most recent period of 5 calendar 
     years for which such data are available.
       ``(e) Appropriations.--With respect to each fiscal year 
     beginning with fiscal year 2001, the Secretary, to carry out 
     this section, shall utilize 50 percent of the amount 
     appropriated under section 2677 to carry out part B for such 
     fiscal year that is in excess of the amount appropriated to 
     carry out such part in fiscal year preceding the fiscal year 
     involved.

     SEC. 129. USE OF TREATMENT FUNDS.

       (a) State duties.--Section 2616(c) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-26(c)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``shall--'' and inserting ``shall use funds made available 
     under this section to--'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E), respectively and realigning 
     the margins of such subparagraphs appropriately;
       (3) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``and'' at the end;
       (4) in subparagraph (E) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     the period and ``; and''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) encourage, support, and enhance adherence to and 
     compliance with treatment regimens, including related medical 
     monitoring.'';
       (6) by striking ``In carrying'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Limitations.--
       ``(A) In general.--No State shall use funds under paragraph 
     (1)(F) unless the limitations on access to HIV/AIDS 
     therapeutic regimens as defined in subsection (e)(2) are 
     eliminated.
       ``(B) Amount of funding.--No State shall use in excess of 
     10 percent of the amount set-aside for use under this section 
     in any fiscal year to carry out activities under paragraph 
     (1)(F) unless the State demonstrates to the Secretary that 
     such additional services are essential and in no way diminish 
     access to therapeutics.''.
       (b) Supplement Grants.--Section 2616 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
     26(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Supplemental Grants for the Provision of 
     Treatments.--
       ``(1) In general.--From amounts made available under 
     paragraph (5), the Secretary shall award supplemental grants 
     to States determined to be eligible under paragraph (2) to 
     enable such States to provide access to therapeutics to treat 
     HIV disease as provided by the State under subsection 
     (c)(1)(B) for individuals at or below 200 percent of the 
     Federal poverty line.
       ``(2) Criteria.--The Secretary shall develop criteria for 
     the awarding of grants under paragraph (1) to States that 
     demonstrate a severe need. In determining the criteria for 
     demonstrating State severity of need (as defined for purposes 
     of section 2603(b)(2)(A)), the Secretary shall consider 
     whether limitation to access exist such that--
       ``(A) the State programs under this section are unable to 
     provide HIV/AIDS therapeutic regimens to all eligible 
     individuals living at or below 200 percent of the Federal 
     poverty line; and
       ``(B) the State programs under this section are unable to 
     provide to all eligible individuals appropriate HIV/AIDS 
     therapeutic regimens as recommended in the most recent 
     Federal treatment guidelines.
       ``(3) State requirement.--The Secretary may not make a 
     grant to a State under this subsection unless the State 
     agrees that--
       ``(A) the State will make available (directly or through 
     donations from public or private entities) non-Federal 
     contributions toward the activities to be carried out under 
     the grant in an amount equal to $1 for each $4 of Federal 
     funds provided in the grant; and
       ``(B) the State will not impose eligibility requirements 
     for services or scope of benefits limitations under 
     subsection (a) that are more restrictive than such 
     requirements in effect as of January 1, 2000.
       ``(4) Use and coordination.--Amounts made available under a 
     grant under this subsection shall only be used by the State 
     to provide AIDS/HIV-related medications. The State shall 
     coordinate the use of such amounts with the amounts otherwise 
     provided under this section in order to maximize drug 
     coverage.
       ``(5) Funding.--
       ``(A) Reservation of amount.--The Secretary may reserve not 
     to exceed 4 percent, but not less than 2 percent, of any 
     amount referred to in section 2618(b)(2)(H) that is 
     appropriated for a fiscal year, to carry out this subsection.
       ``(B) Minimum amount.--In providing grants under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall ensure that the amount of a 
     grant to a State under this part is not less than the amount 
     the State received under this part in the previous fiscal 
     year, as a result of grants provided under this 
     subsection.''.
       (c) Supplement and not Supplant.--Section 2616 (42 U.S.C. 
     300ff-26(c)), as amended by subsection (b), is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Supplement not supplant.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, amounts made available under this section 
     shall be used to supplement and not supplant other funding 
     available to provide treatments of the type that may be 
     provided under this section.''.

     SEC. 130. INCREASE IN MINIMUM ALLOTMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 2618(b)(1)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
     28(b)(1)(A)(i)) is amended--
       (1) in subclause (I), by striking ``$100,000'' and 
     inserting ``$200,000''; and
       (2) in subclause (II), by striking ``$250,000'' and 
     inserting ``$500,000''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 2618(b)(3)(B) (42 U.S.C. 
     300ff-28(b)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``and the Republic 
     of the Marshall Islands'' and inserting ``, the Republic of 
     the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and 
     the Republic of Palau''.

     SEC. 131. SET-ASIDE FOR INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND WOMEN.

       Section 2611(b) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-21(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``for each population under this 
     subsection'' after ``State shall use''; and
       (2) by striking ``ratio of the'' and inserting ``ratio of 
     each''.

     Subtitle C--Amendments to Part C (Early Intervention Services)

     SEC. 141. AMENDMENT OF HEADING; REPEAL OF FORMULA GRANT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Amendment of Heading.--The heading of part C of title 
     XXVI is amended to read as follows:

       ``Part C--Early Intervention and Primary Care Services''.

       (b) Repeal.--Part C of title XXVI (42 U.S.C. 300ff-41 et 
     seq.) is amended--
       (1) by repealing subpart I; and
       (2) by redesignating subparts II and III as subparts I and 
     II.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Information regarding receipt of services.--Section 
     2661(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-61(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``unless--'' and all that follows through ``(2) in the case 
     of'' and inserting ``unless, in the case of''.
       (2) Additional agreements.--Section 2664 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
     64) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (e)(5), by striking ``2642(b) or'';
       (B) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``2642(b) or''; and
       (C) by striking subsection (h).

     SEC. 142. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.

       (a) Allowing Planning and Development Grant to Expand 
     Ability to Provide Primary Care Services.--Section 2654(c) 
     (42 U.S.C. 300ff-54(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may provide planning and 
     development grants to public and nonprofit private entities 
     for the purpose of--
       ``(A) enabling such entities to provide HIV early 
     intervention services; or
       ``(B) assisting such entities to expand the capacity, 
     preparedness, and expertise to deliver primary care services 
     to individuals with HIV disease in underserved low-income 
     communities on the condition that the funds are not used to 
     purchase or improve land or to purchase, construct, or 
     permanently improve (other than minor remodeling) any 
     building or other facility.''; and
       (2) in paragraphs (2) and (3) by striking ``paragraph (1)'' 
     each place that such appears and inserting ``paragraph 
     (1)(A)''.
       (b) Amount; duration.--Section 2654(c) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
     54(c)), as amended by subsection (a), is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Amount and duration of grants.--
       ``(A) Early intervention services.--A grant under paragraph 
     (1)(A) may be made in an amount not to exceed $50,000.
       ``(B) Capacity development.--
       ``(i) Amount.--A grant under paragraph (1)(B) may be made 
     in an amount not to exceed $150,000.
       ``(ii) Duration.--The total duration of a grant under 
     paragraph (1)(B), including any renewal, may not exceed 3 
     years.''.
       (c) Increase in limitation.--Section 2654(c)(5) (42 U.S.C. 
     300ff-54(c)(5)), as so redesignated by subsection (b), is 
     amended by striking ``1 percent'' and inserting ``5 
     percent''.

     SEC. 143. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CATEGORICAL 
                   GRANTS.

       Section 2655 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-55) is amended by striking 
     ``1996'' and all that follows

[[Page S1890]]

     through ``2000'' and inserting ``2001 through 2005''.

     SEC. 144. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CEILING; QUALITY MANAGEMENT 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 2664(g) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-64(g)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), to read as follows:
       ``(3) the applicant will not expend more than 10 percent of 
     the grant for costs of administrative activities with respect 
     to the grant;'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) the applicant will provide for the establishment of a 
     quality management program to assess the extent to which 
     medical services funded under this title that are provided to 
     patients are consistent with the most recent Public Health 
     Service guidelines for the treatment of HIV disease and 
     related opportunistic infections and that improvements in the 
     access to and quality of medical services are addressed.''.

     SEC. 145. PREFERENCE FOR CERTAIN AREAS.

       Section 2651 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-51) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(d) Preference in Awarding Grants.--Beginning in fiscal 
     year 2001, in awarding new grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give preference to applicants that will use 
     amounts received under the grant to serve areas that are 
     otherwise not eligible to receive assistance under part A.''.

         Subtitle D--Amendments to Part D (General Provisions)

     SEC. 151. RESEARCH INVOLVING WOMEN, INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND 
                   YOUTH.

       (a) Elimination of Requirement To Enroll Significant 
     Numbers of Women and Children.--Section 2671(b) (42 U.S.C. 
     300ff-71(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraphs (C) and 
     (D); and
       (2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).
       (b) Information and Education.--Section 2671(d) (42 U.S.C. 
     300ff-71(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) The applicant will provide individuals with 
     information and education on opportunities to participate in 
     HIV/AIDS-related clinical research.''.
       (c) Quality Management; Administrative Expenses Ceiling.--
     Section 2671(f) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-71(f)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the subsection heading and designation and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(f) Administration.--
       ``(1) Application.--''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Quality management program.--A grantee under this 
     section shall implement a quality management program.''.
       (d) Coordination.--Section 2671(g) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-71(g)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     Secretary acting through the Director of NIH, shall examine 
     the distribution and availability of ongoing and appropriate 
     HIV/AIDS-related research projects to existing sites under 
     this section for purposes of enhancing and expanding 
     voluntary access to HIV-related research, especially within 
     communities that are not reasonably served by such 
     projects.''.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 2671(j) (42 
     U.S.C. 300ff-71(j)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 
     1996 through 2000'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2001 through 
     2005''.

     SEC. 152. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       Section 2671 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-71) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (i) and (j), as 
     subsections (j) and (k), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (h), the following:
       ``(i) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--
       ``(1) Determination by secretary.--Not later than 12 months 
     after the date of enactment of the Ryan White Care Act 
     Amendments of 2000, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     grantees under this part, shall conduct a review of the 
     administrative, program support, and direct service-related 
     activities that are carried out under this part to ensure 
     that eligible individuals have access to quality, HIV-related 
     health and support services and research opportunities under 
     this part, and to support the provision of such services.
       ``(2) Requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     expiration of the 12-month period referred to in paragraph 
     (1) the Secretary, in consultation with grantees under this 
     part, shall determine the relationship between the costs of 
     the activities referred to in paragraph (1) and the access of 
     eligible individuals to the services and research 
     opportunities described in such paragraph.
       ``(B) Limitation.--After a final determination under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary may not make a grant under 
     this part unless the grantee complies with such requirements 
     as may be included in such determination.''.

     SEC. 153. EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS.

       Section 2674(c) (42 U.S.C. 399ff-74(c)) is amended by 
     striking ``1991 through 1995'' and inserting ``2001 through 
     2005''.

     SEC. 154. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR GRANTS UNDER 
                   PARTS A AND B.

       Section 2677 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-77) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 2677. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated--
       ``(1) such sums as may be necessary to carry out part A for 
     each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005; and
       ``(2) such sums as may be necessary to carry out part B for 
     each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.

     Subtitle E--Amendments to Part F (Demonstration and Training)

     SEC. 161. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Schools; Centers.--Section 2692(c)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
     111(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.
       (b) Dental Schools.--Section 2692(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
     111(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.

                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE STUDY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall enter into a contract with the Institute of 
     Medicine for the conduct of a study concerning the 
     appropriate epidemiological measures and their relationship 
     to the financing and delivery of primary care and health-
     related support services for low-income, uninsured, and 
     under-insured individuals with HIV disease.
       (b) Requirements.--
       (1) Completion.--The study under subsection (a) shall be 
     completed not later than 21 months after the date on which 
     the contract referred to in such subsection is entered into.
       (2) Issues to be considered.--The study conducted under 
     subsection (a) shall consider--
       (A) the availability and utility of health outcomes 
     measures and data for HIV primary care and support services 
     and the extent to which those measures and data could be used 
     to measure the quality of such funded services;
       (B) the effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery 
     (including the quality of services, health outcomes, and 
     resource use) within the context of a changing health care 
     and therapeutic environment as well as the changing 
     epidemiology of the epidemic;
       (C) existing and needed epidemiological data and other 
     analytic tools for resource planning and allocation 
     decisions, specifically for estimating severity of need of a 
     community and the relationship to the allocations process; 
     and
       (D) other factors determined to be relevant to assessing an 
     individual's or community's ability to gain and sustain 
     access to quality HIV services.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date on which 
     the study is completed under subsection (a), the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services shall prepare and submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report describing the 
     manner in which the conclusions and recommendations of the 
     Institute of Medicine can be addressed and implemented.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senators 
Jeffords, Frist, Dodd, Hatch, Bingaman, and Wellstone in introducing 
the Ryan White CARE Reauthorization Act. I commend Senator Jeffords for 
his leadership and commitment in making this legislation a top priority 
of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for enactment 
this year. I commend Senator Frist for his medical knowledge and 
expertise in drafting this legislation. Senator Dodd has been strongly 
committed to this issue for many years and I am pleased that he 
continues his commitment this year. Senator Hatch joined me more than a 
decade ago when we first introduced this legislation, and he has 
remained committed and involved ever since, and I commend his 
leadership. Senators Bingaman and Wellstone are members of our Senate 
Committee, and they have shown a great deal of interest in making sure 
that these resources reach rural Americans and other emerging 
populations.
  Over the past twenty years, the nation has made extraordinary 
progress in responding to the AIDS epidemic. Medical advances, new and 
effective treatments, and the development of an HIV care infrastructure 
in every state have dramatically improved the access to care for 
individuals and families with HIV who would otherwise not be able to 
afford such care. By providing life-sustaining health and related 
support services, we have reduced the spread of AIDS.
  The CARE Act has contributed to the significant drop in new AIDS 
cases. AIDS-related deaths have decreased significantly, dropping 42% 
from 1996 to 1997, and 20% from 1997 to 1998. Persons with HIV/AIDS are 
living longer and healthier lives because of the CARE Act.
  Perinatal HIV transmission from mother to child has been reduced by 
75% from 1992 to 1997. We are closing the gap in health care 
disparities in vulnerable populations such as communities of color, 
women, and persons with HIV who are uninsured and underinsured.
  Medications have made a difference too. Highly active anti-retroviral

[[Page S1891]]

therapies have given a second lease on life to many Americans with HIV/
AIDS. An estimated 80% of persons in treatment have used one or more of 
these new and effective drugs.
  HIV health care and supportive services have also made a difference. 
An estimated 600,000 persons have received HIV services through the 
Ryan White CARE Act, including primary care, substance abuse treatment, 
dental care, hospice care, and other specialized HIV health care 
services, and the availability of these services has enabled them to 
lead productive lives.
  In Massachusetts, for example, we have seen an overall 77% decline in 
AIDS and HIV-related deaths since 1995. At the same time, however, like 
many other states, we are concerned about the changing HIV/AIDS trends 
and profiles. AIDS and HIV cases increased in women by 11% from 1997 to 
1998, and 55% of persons living with AIDS in the state are persons of 
color.
  Clearly, we have had significant successes in fighting AIDS. We have 
come a long way from the days when ideology dictated care for people 
with AIDS and not sound public health policy. Fortunately, with the 
leadership of Senator Hatch and Senator Jeffords and our bipartisan 
coalition, we were able to enact the Ryan White CARE Act in memory of 
Ryan White. He was a young man with hemophilia who contracted AIDS 
through blood transfusions, and touched the world's heart through his 
valiant efforts to speak out against the ignorance and discrimination 
faced by many persons living with AIDS. His mother, Jeanne White 
carried on her son's message after Ryan's death in 1990. She was 
instrumental in the passage of the Care Act in 1990 and then again in 
1996 and now in 2000.
  The enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act in 1900 provided an 
emergency response to the devastating effects of HIV on individuals, 
families, communities, and state and local governments. The CARE Act 
signaled a comprehensive approach by targeting funds to respond to the 
specific needs of communities. Title I targets the hardest hit 
metropolitan areas in the country. Local planning and priority setting 
requirements under Title I assure that each of the Eligible 
Metropolitan Areas respond to the local HIV/AIDS demographics.
  Title II of the Act funds emergency relief to the states. It helps 
them to develop an HIV care infrastructure and provide effective and 
life-sustaining HIV/AIDS drug therapies through the AIDS Drug 
Assistance Program to over 61,000 persons each month.
  Title III funds community health centers and other primary health 
care providers that serve communities with a significant and 
disproportionate need for HIV care. Many of these community health 
centers are located in the hardest hit areas, serving low income 
communities.
  Finally, Title IV of the CARE Act is designed to meet the specific 
needs of women, children and families.
  While the CARE Act has benefited large numbers of Americans in need, 
a number of critical areas remain where improvements are essential if 
we are to meet the growing needs in our communities. We know that of 
the estimated 750,000 persons living with HIV/AIDS in the United 
States, over 215,000 know their HIV status, yet are not in care. New 
health care access points are needed to bring these persons into care. 
At the same time, the CARE Act programs currently serving an estimated 
600,000 persons annually are challenged more than ever in meeting the 
growing need and demand for services. The Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention estimates that the need will continue to grow since we 
have an estimated 40,000 new cases of HIV/AIDS annually in the United 
States.
  Also, not everyone is benefiting from the advances in the development 
of new and effective drug treatments. The skyrocketing costs of 
expensive AIDS drugs, estimated at $15,000 annually per person, has led 
26% of the CARE Act's AIDS Drug Assistance Programs to cap enrollment, 
establish waiting lists, or limit eligibility. Guaranteeing that 
effective drug treatments are available and affordable to all persons 
with HIV/AIDS has always been a priority for the CARE Act. Reducing 
barriers to access in communities of color and other vulnerable 
populations is a priority for this reauthorization.

  We are fortunate in Massachusetts to have a state budget that has 
also been able to provide funding for primary care, prevention, and 
outreach efforts, but no state by itself can provide the significant 
financial resources to help persons living with HIV to obtain needed 
medical and support access.
  We still find serious disparities in access to HIV health care in 
communities of color, women, the uninsured and underinsured. The 
demographics of the epidemic have been steadily changing. The majority 
of new AIDS cases reported are among racial and ethnic minority 
populations and groups that traditionally have faced heavy barriers in 
obtaining adequate health care services. While African Americans make 
up 12% of the general population, they account for 45% of new AIDS 
cases. 80% of new AIDS cases are occurring in women of color. As many 
as half of all new infections are occurring in people under the age of 
25, and one quarter of all new infections are occurring in persons 
under the age of 22. The CARE Act must be able to adjust to meet these 
changing trends in the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Geographic shifts in the 
epidemic as well as the availability of new sources of financing for 
HIV/AIDS care must be taken into account to assure equity in how the 
federal government and states respond to the epidemic.
  The CARE Act must continue to provide resources to help local 
communities to plan and to set priorities for CARE dollars. We must 
develop better ways to measure the severity of need and the health 
disparities, and assure that these improvements are taken into account 
in HIV planning, in establishing priorities, and in allocating funds.
  This bill addresses these new challenges in ensuring access to HIV 
drug treatments for all, reducing health disparities in vulnerable 
communities, and improving the distribution and quality of services 
under the CARE Act. Proposed changes will ensure greater access to care 
in low income, historically underserved urban and rural communities, by 
increasing targeted funding to areas where the HIV care infrastructure 
may not exist. This bill also focuses on quality and accountability of 
HIV service delivery by requiring effective quality management 
activities that ensure their consistency with Public Health Service 
guidelines, and by making changes to ensure that CARE Act dollars are 
used for their intended purposes.
  These improvements are intended to close the gap in health care 
disparities and improve inequities in services and funding among 
states. They will build capacity in underserved rural and urban areas, 
and focus state and local program priorities on underserved populations 
and persons not in care. They will develop new points of entry 
relationships to improve coordination of care. They will increase early 
access to care, in order to begin HIV treatment earlier and improve the 
quality of care that patients receive.
  We know that the CARE Act has made a difference not only in the lives 
of persons with HIV/AIDS, but also in the lives of countless loved ones 
who have seen despair turned to hope through support of CARE Act 
services. The story of Lory in Massachusetts is a compelling example of 
young woman living with HIV, unable to work full-time, and unable to 
afford anti-retroviral medications without Ryan White CARE Act 
assistance. The support she has received from the caring staff at 
Fenway Clinic in Boston is impressive. As Lory told us at our committee 
hearing on March 2nd on the reauthorization of the Act ``It is not an 
exaggeration when I tell you that without Fenway I would be dead. They 
have saved my life.''
  I'm sure that Lory's eloquent testimony is true of countless others 
across the country who are living with this tragic disease. The Ryan 
White CARE Act has made an enormous difference in their lives. I look 
forward to early action by Congress on this important legislation, so 
that we can continue to help as many people as possible.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention estimate that between 650,000 and 900,000 Americans are 
currently living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), of whom 
280,000 have acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). As of June 
1999, there were 8,814 people in my home state of Tennessee living with 
HIV/AIDS. As a physician, I have seen first hand the deadly impact of

[[Page S1892]]

this disease on patients, and have also seen first hand what can happen 
if the prevalence of AIDS goes unchecked. On February 24, 2000, as 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa, I held a 
hearing on the AIDS crisis in Africa. In Africa, this disease has 
reached truly pandemic proportions, causing cultural and economic 
devastation. Every day, there are 16,000 new infections globally, 
despite the great strides we have made in the treatment and prevention 
of this condition.
  Ironically and unfortunately, the new advancements in treatment may 
have caused many to become complacent. A survey co-authored by Yale 
revealed that more than 80% of our youth do not believe they are at 
risk for HIV infections. However, the fact is that the number of new 
infections among adolescents continues to rise and it is rising 
disproportionally among minorities. AIDS remains the leading cause of 
death among African-Americans 25-44 years of age and the second leading 
cause of death among Latinos in the same age range. Furthermore, in 
1998, African-American and Hispanic women accounted for 80% of the 
total AIDS cases reported for women nationwide. In my own state of 
Tennessee, 59% of the new AIDS cases were among African-Americans, who 
make up 45% of the total AIDS cases in the state. Since its original 
discovery, it is estimated that over 13.9 million have died worldwide 
and over 400,000 have died in the United States as a result of HIV/
AIDS. Fortunately, over the last 15 years, we have doubled the life 
expectancy of people with AIDS, developed new and powerful drugs for 
the treatment of HIV infection, and made advances in the treatment and 
prevention of AIDS-related opportunistic infections.
  Another important component in the struggle against HIV/AIDS has been 
the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act, which 
I am pleased to join with Senator Jeffords in supporting today. The 
Ryan White CARE Act, a unique partnership between federal, local, and 
state governments; non-profit community organizations, health care and 
supportive service providers. For the last decade, this Act has 
successfully provided much needed assistance in health care costs and 
support services for low-income, uninsured and underinsured individuals 
with HIV/AIDS.
  Through programs such as AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), which 
provides access to pharmaceuticals, the CARE Act has helped extend and 
even save lives. Last year alone, nearly 100,000 people living with HIV 
and AIDS received access to drug therapy because of the CARE Act. Half 
the people served by the CARE Act have family incomes of less than 
$10,000 annually, which is lower than the $12,000 annual average cost 
of new drug ``cocktails'' for treatment. The CARE Act is critical in 
ensuring that the number of people living with AIDS continues to 
increase, as effective new drug therapies are keeping HIV-infected 
persons healthy longer and dramatically reducing the death rate. 
Investments in enabling patients with HIV to live healthier and more 
productive lives have helped to reduce overall health costs. For 
example, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that the 
nation has seen a 30% decline in HIV related hospitalizations, which 
results in nearly one million fewer HIV related hospital days and a 
savings of more than $1 billion.
  During the 104th Congress, I had the pleasure of working with Senator 
Kassebaum on the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 1996 to ensure this 
needed law was extended. Today I am pleased to join Senator Jeffords as 
an original cosponsor to the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000, 
which will further improve and extend this law. Senator Jeffords, who 
has done a terrific job in crafting this bill, has already outlined 
some specifics of this legislation, however, I would like to conclude 
by discussing a specific provision which I am grateful Senator Jeffords 
included in this reauthorization.
  This bill contains a provision, under Title II of this Act, to 
address the fact that the face of this disease is changing and is 
moving into and affecting more rural communities. A recent GAO audit 
found that rural areas may offer more limited medical and social 
services than cities because urban areas generally receive more money 
per AIDS case. To help address this concern, this new provision will 
provide supplemental grants to States for additional HIV/AIDS services 
in underserved areas. One important aspect of this provision is the 
creation of supplemental grants for emerging metropolitan communities, 
which do not qualify for Title I funding but have reported between 
1,000 and 2,000 AIDS cases in the last five years. Currently, this 
provision would provide 7 cities, including Memphis and Nashville, a 
general pot of money to divide of at least $5 million in new funding 
each year, or 25% of new monies under Title II, whichever is greater.
  Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Jeffords for his 
leadership on this issue, and Sean Donohue and William Fleming of his 
staff for all their expertise in drafting this bill. I would also like 
to thank Senator Kennedy and Stephanie Robinson of his staff for their 
work and dedication to this issue. I would also like to thank Dr. Bill 
Moore of the Tennessee Department of Health and Mr. Joe Interrante of 
Nashville CARES for their counsel and assistance on this legislation 
and for their efforts in helping Tennesseans with HIV/AIDS.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Kennedy, 
Jeffords, Frist, Hatch, Bingaman, Harkin, Wellstone, Reed, Enzi, and 
Mikulski in sponsoring the Ryan White CARE Reauthorization Act, 
legislation which will provide for the continuation of critical support 
services for those living with HIV and AIDS. I thank Senators Jeffords 
and Kennedy for their leadership and commitment to this important bill, 
and commend their efforts to ensure that the reauthorization 
legislation addresses the new challenges of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
  Over the last two decades, our Nation has made tremendous advances in 
responding to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. We've all been encouraged by the 
recent reports that the number of AIDS cases dropped last year for the 
first time in the 16 year history of the epidemic. The new combination 
therapies largely responsible for this change in course have brought 
new hope to families devastated by this disease. Although it was 
unimaginable just a few years ago, it now appears possible that we may 
soon view AIDS, if not as curable, than at least as a manageable, 
chronic illness.
  But, despite these advances in treatment options, the HIV/AIDS 
epidemic remains an enormous health emergency in the United States, 
with the number of AIDS cases in the U.S. nearly doubling during the 
last five years. According to a study sponsored by the U.S. Public 
Health Service, approximately 250,000 to 300,000 people living with HIV 
or AIDS currently receive no medical treatment. Therefore, while we 
must sustain our efforts in the areas of research and education, it is 
also critical that we continue to provide resources to help states and 
disproportionately affected communities develop the necessary 
infrastructure to provide HIV/AIDS care. One of the most important 
changes made to the Ryan White programs by this Reauthorization Act is 
the emphasis on the need for early diagnosis of the disease. This new 
emphasis is reflected in the bill's provisions relating to early 
intervention activities, which will support early diagnosis and 
encourage linkages into care for populations at high risk for HIV.
  In the decade since the enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act we've 
seen a transformation in the face of AIDS. Since women and children are 
disproportionately represented among the newly infected, I am 
especially pleased that this bill provides for the coordination of Ryan 
White and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) funds, and 
includes a set-aside for infants, children, and women proportionate to 
the percentage each group represents in the eligible funding area's 
AIDS affected population.
  During the decade of the Ryan White CARE Act, we've also seen a shift 
in the challenges facing providers. Ten years ago, Ryan White providers 
focused primarily on helping people while they died. Now, more and 
more, providers are moving into the business of helping individuals 
infected with HIV live long and full lives. But, while the discovery of 
powerful drug therapies has improved the quality and length of life for 
many who are HIV positive, access to these drugs and to

[[Page S1893]]

other critical health services is still difficult for many, since AIDS 
is fast becoming a disease of poverty. The CARE Act's AIDS Drug 
Assistance Programs remain a lifeline for low-income individuals who 
cannot afford the costs of regular care and expensive AIDS drug 
regimens (now estimated at $15,000 annually per person).
  The CARE Act has made a difference to the lives of countless 
individuals and families affected by a devastating disease. While there 
is hope for the future, the changing demographics of the disease 
present new challenges. The Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000 
address these challenges while maintaining those aspects of the Act 
that demonstrate proven results. I look forward to working with 
Congress as we move forward with the reauthorization, so that the 
thousands of people who rely on the services of Ryan White programs can 
continue to maintain their dignity and quality of life.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues on the HELP 
committee to cosponsor the Ryan White Care Act Amendments of 2000. I do 
this with pride in what has been accomplished since I last cosponsored 
the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act in 1996. This 
legislation since 1991 has enabled the development of community driven 
systems of care for low-income, uninsured, and underinsured individuals 
and families affected by HIV disease.
  Last year alone, the Ryan White CARE Act served an estimated half 
million people living with HIV and AIDS and affected the lives of 
millions more. Nearly 6 in 10 of these people were poor. Last year, 
this legislation enabled approximately 100,000 people living with HIV 
and AIDS to receive drug therapy. This is particularly important 
because half of the people served by the Act have incomes less than 
$10,000 a year--and the new drug treatments cost more than $12,000 
annually.
  According to the National Center for Health Statistics, between 1995 
and 1997, there has been a 30 percent decline in HIV related 
hospitalizations, representing a savings of more than $1 billion. Since 
1991, according to Sandra Thurman, Director of the Office of National 
AIDS Policy, the CARE Act has helped to reduce AIDS mortality by 70 
percent; to reduce mother-child transmission of HIV by 75 percent; and 
to enhance both the length and quality of life for people living with 
HIV/AIDS.
  The epidemic is far from over. Each year there are 40,000 new HIV 
infections in the U.S., and the death rate is no longer dropping so 
quickly. Although people with HIV disease are living much longer, the 
highly touted multi-drug therapies are beginning to fall short of their 
prayed for effectiveness, and they do not work for everyone.
  In addition, the nature of the epidemic is changing. HIV/AIDS is 
devastating communities of color. AIDS is the leading cause of death 
for African-Americans aged 25 to 44, and the second leading cause of 
death among Latino Americans of the same age group. HIV/AIDS also 
disproportionately affects younger Americans. Half of the 40,000 new 
infections each year occur in individuals under age 25. AIDS is killing 
the youngest, potentially most productive members of our society. 
Without a renewed commitment to research, prevention, and culturally 
sensitive treatment, the rates of infection and death will continue to 
ravage communities of color.
  It is a testament to the success of this legislation that there is 
such unanimity among the committee members and all of the diverse group 
of stakeholders that the Ryan White Care Act needs to be reauthorized. 
The amendments included in this legislation are designed to increase 
the accountability of the overall program; to meet the challenges of 
the changing nature of the epidemic; to improve the quality of care; 
and to reach those affected by this plague who have not been reached 
before. We often say ``Leave no child behind'' and everyone agrees. We 
must also say, ``let's leave no one afflicted by this dread disease 
untreated''.
  Provisions for quality management around clinical practice will bring 
best practices to patients. Holding grantees accountable for quality 
management and relevance of programs means the money appropriated will 
be well spent. This is good medicine and responsible lawmaking.
  Allowing for flexibility in how the AIDS Drug Assistance Program 
(ADAP) funds are spent will provide more low-income individuals with 
life-prolonging medications. Focusing on early intervention services to 
support early diagnosis will get patients into treatment faster and 
hopefully also slow the spread of the disease. Requiring grantees to 
develop and maintain linkages with key points of entry to the medical 
system, such as mental health and substance abuse treatment centers, 
will dramatically improve treatment, slow the spread of the disease, 
and reach previously unserved people. This is good prevention.
  In 1990, the HIV/AIDS epidemic was primarily limited to large cities; 
hence the majority of funds were granted to cities. Over the last 
decade, unfortunately, the epidemic has spread to more rural areas and 
to different populations. This bill requires that funds be spent in 
accordance with local demographics. Several provisions in this bill 
will allow more funds to go to less populated areas and to provide 
special grants for infants, youth and women. This is good allocation of 
resources based on needs.
  This bill also contains fiscally responsible caps on administrative 
costs, and requires all grantees to coordinate with Medicaid and the 
State Children's Health Insurance Program. This makes good fiscal 
sense.
  Mr. President, the Ryan White CARE Act has saved lives and serves 
hundreds of thousands of needy people yearly. The Ryan White CARE Act 
has a proven record of success; let's build on that success. This 
federal legislation needs to be reauthorized now, as proposed, to meet 
the continuing needs and new challenges presented by the changing 
nature of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
  That is why I urge all Senators to join in cosponsoring and passing 
the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000, and I urge the members of 
the Appropriations Committee to provide the funds to fully implement 
it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 2312. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for a moratorium on the mandatory delay of payment of claims 
submitted under part B of the Medicare Program and to establish an 
advanced informational infrastructure for the administration of Federal 
health benefits programs; to the Committee on Finance.


           HEALTH CARE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT ACT OF 2000

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Health Care 
Infrastructure Investment Act.
  Formerly arcane statistics of interest only to economists, 
productivity and innovation are now veritable buzz-words in today's 
much-heralded new economy. Recently released productivity figures drew 
front page coverage from both the Washington Post and New York Times. 
Most economists, including Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, 
attribute the surge in productivity to technological improvements. A 
host of new and improved technologies, including faster computers and 
rapid expansion of the Internet, have led to improved efficiencies. The 
result: workers are more productive, companies continue to grow and 
wealth is created.
  Today nearly every industrial sector is involved in a race to apply 
new technology and management techniques to gain greater efficiencies. 
Yet one sector that accounts for 13 percent of America's gross domestic 
product--health care--still uses a patchwork-quilt of outdated 
technology for the most basic of its transactions.
  While individual components within the health industry are adopting 
advanced communication, manufacturing and other technologies but the 
inner core of health care--a series of transactions between doctor, 
patient and insurance provider--remains largely untouched by 
technological advances that would decrease the administrative load 
accompanying every transaction.
  At a time when America's growing population is seeking a higher 
quality of care; when the greying of America means that Medicare 
enrollment will double by 2040; when new medical procedures are being 
developed that hold great promise for the treatment and cure of 
diseases like cancer and AIDS; when prescription drugs are becoming 
available that extend and improve the quality of life--we have every 
motivation for adopting into health care some

[[Page S1894]]

of the same technologies and ideas responsible for transforming other 
sectors of the American economy.
  A robust and modern infrastructure for American health care will 
enable resources to be shifted to where they are most needed and allow 
for the dramatic increases in productivity necessary to treat 
increasing numbers of people at a higher level of care. In this sense, 
efficiency is not double-speak for additional restrictions placed on 
the doctor-patient relationship or further regulations on insurance 
coverage. Instead, greater efficiency means that doctors are free to 
spend more time treating patients, insurance companies reduce the cost 
of claims processing and consumers are empowered with a better 
understanding of treatment and costs.
  America's interstate highway system is a prime example of a wise 
infrastructure investment. As a result of a sustained Federal 
commitment, Americans enjoy an unprecedented degree of mobility while 
the economy benefits from the low cost and ease of transportation. A 
similar approach should be applied to health care whose roads for 
processing information resemble the rutted cobblestone paths of 
medieval times.
  The Health Care Infrastructure Investment Act is designed to spur 
Federal and private sector investment so that a nationwide network of 
systems is built for health care. A network of systems is a descriptive 
term that refers to the conglomeration of hardware, software and secure 
information networks designed to speed the flow of information and 
capital between doctors, patients and insurance providers.
  The primary goal of the Health Care Infrastructure Investment Act is 
to build an advanced infrastructure to efficiently process and handle 
the vast number of straightforward transactions that now clog the 
pipeline and drain scarce health care resources. Among the targeted 
transactions are immediate, point-of-service verification of insurance 
coverage, point-of-service checking for incomplete or erroneous claim 
submission and point-of-service resolution of clean claims for doctor 
office visits including the delivery of an explanation of benefits and 
payment.
  When designing a complex system, a first step is to define 
performance standards that the system must meet. As configured, the 
legislation mandates broadly defined performance standards for the 
federally administered Medicare program that will be phased-in over a 
ten year period. To ensure that improvements in the infrastructure 
supporting federally-financed health care are matched in the managed 
care sector, insurers participating in the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits program will also be required to meet these same performance 
standards.

  Also critical will be harnessing the expertise of selection of the 
Federal agency responsible for the design and implementation of an 
advanced health care infrastructure. Some of my colleagues have 
suggested that the Department of Defense or even NASA, two agencies 
with decades of experience with complex, distributed networks, be 
assigned a leadership role. Accordingly, the legislation forms a Health 
Care Infrastructure Commission, chaired by the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services, and composed of senior officials from NASA, the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Science Foundation, the 
Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Department of Veterans 
Affairs. Officials named to the Health Care Infrastructure Commission 
are required to be expert in advanced information technology.
  The legislation also strives to create a strong partnership with the 
private sector, as many of the advances in communication technology are 
driven by companies, both large and small.
  Many pieces of a truly advanced health care infrastructure already 
exist. But like a modern-day Tower of Babel, communication is hindered 
by differences in language and function. Sorely needed is a combination 
of vision and commitment: vision to design a system that is secure, 
efficient and flexible and the commitment to dedicate necessary 
intellectual and financial resources for its design and implementation.
  America has put a man on the moon, designed advanced stealth fighters 
and is now enjoying a sustained period of economic expansion stimulated 
by electronic devices, telephone and Internet. We must now develop and 
build a health care infrastructure that checks insurance status with 
the swipe of a card, provides speedy payment to doctors for their 
expertise in healing and allows a patient to leave the doctor's office 
with a single statement of treatment and cost. I am confident that we 
will succeed.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Health Care Infrastructure 
Investment Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Reid, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 2315. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
with respect to the safety of genetically engineered foods, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


                 GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD SAFETY ACT

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I am joined with Senator 
Reid and Senator Boxer to introduce the Genetically Engineered Food 
Safety Act (S. 2315), a bill to require food safety testing for 
genetically engineered foods.
  The ability to alter an organism by specifically transferring genetic 
codes between plants and animals is a new realm of science that we have 
only begun investigating. This technology has the promise to deliver 
real public goods: increased crop yields and products which combat 
disease and improve nutrition. But the technology also has the 
potential to pose a number of threats to the nation's public health, 
environment, and economy, and U.S. consumers are understandably 
concerned.
  The Federal Government has a duty to ensure that genetically 
engineered foods (GEFs) are safe to eat. The Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) currently requires rigorous pre-market review for 
pharmaceutical drugs, biological products, and medical devices 
introduced in the U.S. market. For GEFs, however, FDA only asks the 
industry to submit safety data voluntarily. Even if industry fully 
complies, our concern is that a conflict of interest exists when an 
industry determines its own level of safety review for products it 
wants to promote.
  S. 2315 would simply give FDA discretion to conduct its own safety 
testing of new GEFs and requires that certain factors are examined. 
GEFs on the market today will remain on the market as long as FDA also 
reviews these products for health safety. Much like the current 
practice, funding for these tests will come primarily from industry. A 
fee system will be developed that is modeled after FDA's current 
program for reviewing pharmaceuticals and supplemented by Federal 
funding.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2315

       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 ``Genetically Engineered Food 
     Safety Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Genetic engineering is an artificial gene transfer 
     process different from traditional breeding.
       (2) Genetic engineering can be used to produce new versions 
     of virtually all plant and animal foods. Thus, within a short 
     time, the food supply could consist almost entirely of 
     genetically engineered products.
       (3) This conversion from a food supply based on 
     traditionally bred organisms to one based on organisms 
     produced through genetic engineering could be one of the most 
     important changes in the food supply in this century.
       (4) Genetically engineered foods present new issues of 
     safety that have not been adequately studied.
       (5) United States consumers are increasing concerned that 
     food safety issues regarding genetically engineered foods are 
     not being adequately addressed.
       (6) Congress has previously required that food additives be 
     analyzed for their safety prior to their placement on the 
     market.
       (7) Adding new genes, and the substances that the genes 
     code for, into a food should be considered adding a food 
     additive, thus requiring an analysis of safety factors.
       (8) The food additive process gives the Food and Drug 
     Administration discretion in

[[Page S1895]]

     applying the safety factors that are generally recognized as 
     appropriate to evaluate the safety of food and food 
     ingredients.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL DETERMINATION OF SAFETY OF GENETICALLY 
                   ENGINEERED FOOD; REGULATION AS FOOD ADDITIVE.

       (a) Inclusion in Definition of Food Additive.--Section 201 
     of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (s), by adding after subparagraph (6) the 
     following:
     ``Such term includes the different genetic constructs, 
     proteins of or other substances produced by such constructs, 
     vectors, promoters, marker systems, and other appropriate 
     terms that are used or created as a result of the creation of 
     a genetically engineered food, other than a genetic 
     construct, protein or other substance, vector, promoter, 
     marker system, or other appropriate term for which an 
     application has been filed under section 505 or 512.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(kk)(1) The term `genetically engineered food' means food 
     that contains or was produced with a genetically engineered 
     material.
       ``(2) The term `genetically engineered material' means 
     material derived from any part of a genetically engineered 
     organism.
       ``(3) The term `genetically engineered organism' means--
       ``(A) an organism that has been altered at the molecular or 
     cellular level by means that are not possible under natural 
     conditions or processes (including recombinant DNA and RNA 
     techniques, cell fusion, microencapsulation, 
     macroencapsulation, gene deletion and doubling, introduction 
     of a foreign gene, and a process that changes the positions 
     of genes), other than a means consisting exclusively of 
     breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro 
     fertilization, or tissue culture; and
       ``(B) an organism made through sexual or asexual 
     reproduction (or both) involving an organism described in 
     clause (A), if possessing any of the altered molecular or 
     cellular characteristics of the organism so described.
       ``(4) The term `genetic food additive' means a genetic 
     construct, protein or other substance, vector, promoter, 
     marker system, or other appropriate term that is a food 
     additive.''.
       (b) Petition to Establish Safety.--
       (1) Data in petition.--Section 409(b)(2) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) in the case of a genetic food additive, all data that 
     was collected or developed pursuant to the investigations, 
     including data that does not support the claim of safety for 
     use.''.
       (2) Notices; public availability of information.--Section 
     409(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 348(b)(5)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(5)'' and inserting ``(5)(A)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following subparagraphs:
       ``(B) In the case of a genetic food additive, the 
     Secretary, promptly after providing the notice under 
     subparagraph (A), shall make available to the public all 
     reports and data described in subparagraphs (E) and (F) of 
     paragraph (2) that are contained in the petition involved, 
     and all other information in the petition to the extent that 
     the information is relevant to a determination of safety for 
     use of the additive. Such notice shall state whether any 
     information in the petition is not being made available to 
     the public because the Secretary has made a determination 
     that the information does not relate to safety for use of the 
     additive. Any person may petition the Secretary for a 
     reconsideration of such a determination, and if the Secretary 
     finds in favor of such person, the information shall be made 
     available to the public and the period for public comment 
     described in subsection (c)(2)(B) shall be extended until the 
     end of the 30th day after the information is made available.
       ``(C) In the case of a genetic food additive, the following 
     rules shall apply:
       ``(i) The Secretary shall maintain and make available to 
     the public through electronic and non-electronic means a list 
     of petitions that are pending under this subsection and a 
     list of petitions for which regulations have been established 
     under subsection (c)(1)(A). Such list shall include 
     information on the additives involved, including the source 
     of the additives, and including any information received by 
     the Secretary pursuant to clause (ii).
       ``(ii) If a regulation is in effect under subsection 
     (c)(1)(A) for a genetic food additive, any person who 
     manufactures such additive for commercial use shall submit to 
     the Secretary a notification of any knowledge of data that 
     relate to the adverse health effects of the additive, in a 
     case in which the knowledge is acquired by the person after 
     the date on which the regulation took effect. If the 
     manufacturer is in possession of the data, the notification 
     shall include the data. The Secretary shall by regulation 
     establish the scope of the responsibilities of manufacturers 
     under this clause, including such limits on the 
     responsibilities as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.''.
       (3) Effective date of regulation regarding safe use; 
     opportunity for public comment.--Section 409(c)(2) of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348(c)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(2)(A)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following subparagraph:
       ``(B) In the case of a genetic food additive, an order may 
     not be issued under paragraph (1)(A) before the expiration of 
     the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the 
     Secretary has made information available to the public under 
     subsection (b)(5)(B) regarding the petition involved. During 
     such period (or such longer period as the Secretary may 
     designate), the Secretary shall provide interested persons an 
     opportunity to submit to the Secretary comments on the 
     petition. In publishing a notice for the additive under 
     subsection (b)(5), the Secretary shall inform the public of 
     such opportunity.''.
       (4) Consideration of certain factors.--Section 409(c) of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348(c)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following paragraph:
       ``(6) In the case of a genetic food additive, the factors 
     considered by the Secretary regarding safety for use shall 
     include the following:
       ``(A) Allergenicity effects resulting from added proteins, 
     including proteins not found in the food supply.
       ``(B) Appropriate types of toxicity of proteins or other 
     substances added to genetically engineered foods.
       ``(C) Pleiotropic effects. The Secretary shall require 
     tests to determine the potential for such effects, including 
     increased levels of toxins, or changes in the levels of 
     nutrients.
       ``(D) Changes in the functional characteristics of food.''.
       (5) Certain tests.--Section 409(c) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by paragraph (4), is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following paragraph:
       ``(7) In the case of a genetic food additive, the following 
     rules shall apply:
       ``(A) If a genetic food additive is a protein from a 
     commonly or severely allergenic food, the Secretary may not 
     establish a regulation under paragraph (1)(A) for the 
     additive if the petition filed under subsection (b)(1) for 
     the additive fails to include full reports of investigations 
     that used serum or skin tests (or other advanced techniques) 
     on a sensitive population to determine whether such additive 
     is commonly or severely allergenic.
       ``(B)(i) If a genetic food additive is a protein that has 
     not undergone the investigations described in subparagraph 
     (A), the Secretary may not establish a regulation under 
     paragraph (1)(A) for the additive if the petition filed under 
     subsection (b)(1) fails to include full reports of 
     investigations that used the best available biochemical and 
     physiological protocols to evaluate whether it is likely that 
     the protein involved is an allergen.
       ``(ii)(I) For purposes of clause (i), the Secretary shall 
     by regulation determine the best available biochemical and 
     physiological protocols.
       ``(II) In carrying out rulemaking under subclause (I), the 
     Secretary shall consult with the Director of the National 
     Institutes of Health.''.
       (6) Prohibited additives.--Section 409(c) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by paragraph (5), is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following paragraph:
       ``(8)(A) In the case of a genetic food additive, the 
     Secretary may only establish a regulation under paragraph 
     (1)(A) for the additive if the regulation requires that a 
     food containing the additive meet the requirements of 
     subparagraph (C), in a case in which--
       ``(i) the additive is a protein and a report of an 
     investigation described in subsection (b)(2)(E) finds that 
     the additive is likely to be commonly or severely allergenic; 
     or
       ``(ii) the additive is a protein and such a report of an 
     investigation that uses a protocol described in paragraph 
     (7)(B) fails to find with reasonable certainty that the 
     additive is unlikely to be an allergen.
       ``(B) Effective June 1, 2004, in the case of a genetic food 
     additive, the Secretary may not establish a regulation under 
     paragraph (1)(A), and shall repeal any regulation in effect 
     under that paragraph, for the additive if a selective marker 
     is used with respect to the additive, the selective marker 
     will remain in the food involved when the food is marketed, 
     and the selective marker inhibits the function of 1 or more 
     antimicrobial drugs.
       ``(C) In a case described in clause (i) or (ii) of 
     subparagraph (A), in order to meet the requirements of this 
     subparagraph, a food that contains a genetic food additive 
     shall--
       ``(i) bear a label or labeling that clearly and 
     conspicuously states the name of the allergen involved; or
       ``(ii) be offered for sale under a name that includes the 
     name of the allergen.''.
       (7) Additional provisions.--Section 409(c) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by paragraph (6), is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following paragraph:
       ``(9)(A) In determining the safety for use of a genetic 
     food additive under this subsection, the Secretary may 
     (directly or through contract) conduct an investigation of 
     such additive for purposes of supplementing the information 
     provided to the Secretary pursuant to a petition filed under 
     subsection (b)(1).
       ``(B) To provide Congress with a periodic independent, 
     external review of the Secretary's formulation of the 
     approval process

[[Page S1896]]

     carried out under paragraph (1)(A) that relates to genetic 
     food additives, the Secretary shall enter into an agreement 
     with the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of 
     Sciences. Such agreement shall provide that, if the Institute 
     of Medicine has any concerns regarding the approval process, 
     the Institute of Medicine will submit to Congress a report 
     describing such concerns.
       ``(C) In the case of genetic food additives, petitions 
     filed under subsection (b)(1) may not be categorically 
     excluded from the application of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).''.
       (c) Regulation Issued on Secretary's Initiative.--Section 
     409(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     348(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(d) The Secretary'' and inserting 
     ``(d)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
       ``(2) The provisions of subsections (b) and (c) that 
     expressly refer to genetic food additives apply with respect 
     to a regulation proposed by the Secretary under paragraph (1) 
     to the same extent and in the same manner as such provisions 
     apply with respect to a regulation issued under subsection 
     (c) in response to a petition filed under subsection (b)(1). 
     For purposes of this subsection, references in such 
     provisions to information contained in such a petition shall 
     be considered to be references to similar information in the 
     possession of the Secretary.''.
       (d) Civil Penalties.--Section 303 of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following subsection:
       ``(h)(1) With respect to a violation of section 301(a), 
     301(b), or 301(c) involving the adulteration of food by 
     reason of failure to comply with the provisions of section 
     409 that relate to genetic food additives, any person 
     engaging in such a violation shall be liable to the United 
     States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed 
     $100,000 for each such violation.
       ``(2) Paragraphs (3) through (5) of subsection (g) apply 
     with respect to a civil penalty under paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection to the same extent and in the same manner as such 
     paragraphs (3) through (5) apply with respect to a civil 
     penalty under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (g).''.
       (e) Rule of Construction.--With respect to section 409 of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, compliance with the 
     provisions of such section 409 that relate to genetic food 
     additives does not constitute an affirmative defense in any 
     cause of action under Federal or State law for personal 
     injury resulting in whole or in part from a genetic food 
     additive.

     SEC. 4. USER FEES REGARDING DETERMINATION OF SAFETY OF 
                   GENETIC FOOD ADDITIVES.

       Chapter IV of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 341 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 409 
     the following section:

     ``SEC. 409A. USER FEES REGARDING SAFETY OF GENETIC FOOD 
                   ADDITIVES.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of genetic food additives, 
     the Secretary shall, in accordance with this section, assess 
     and collect a fee on each petition that is filed under 
     section 409(b)(1). The fee shall be collected from the person 
     who submits the petition, shall be due upon submission of the 
     petition, and shall be assessed in an amount determined under 
     subsection (c). This section applies as of the first fiscal 
     year that begins after the date of promulgation of the final 
     regulation required in section 5 of the Genetically 
     Engineered Food Safety Act (referred to in this section as 
     the `first applicable fiscal year').
       ``(b) Purpose of Fees.--
       ``(1) In general.--The purposes of fees required under 
     subsection (a) are as follows:
       ``(A) To defray increases in the costs of the resources 
     allocated for carrying out section 409 for the first 
     applicable fiscal year over the costs of carrying out such 
     section for the preceding fiscal year, other than increases 
     that are not attributable to the responsibilities of the 
     Secretary with respect to genetic food additives.
       ``(B) To provide for a program of basic and applied 
     research on the safety of genetic food additives (to be 
     carried out by the Commissioner). The program shall address 
     fundamental questions and problems that arise repeatedly 
     during the process of reviewing petitions under section 
     409(b)(1) with respect to genetic food additives, and shall 
     not directly support the development of new genetically 
     engineered foods.
       ``(2) Allocations by secretary.--Of the total fee revenues 
     collected under subsection (a) for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reserve and expend--
       ``(A) 95 percent for the purpose described in paragraph 
     (1)(A); and
       ``(B) 5 percent for the purpose described in paragraph 
     (1)(B).
       ``(3) Certain provisions regarding increased administrative 
     costs.--With respect to fees required under subsection (a)--
       ``(A) increases referred to in paragraph (1)(A) include the 
     costs of the Secretary in providing for investigations under 
     section 409(c)(9)(A); and
       ``(B) increases referred to in paragraph (1)(A) include 
     increases in costs for an additional number of full-time 
     equivalent positions in the Department of Health and Human 
     Services to be engaged in carrying out section 409 with 
     respect to genetic food additives.
       ``(c) Total Fee Revenues; Individual Fee Amounts.--The 
     total fee revenues collected under subsection (a) for a 
     fiscal year shall be the amounts appropriated under 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (f)(2) for such fiscal 
     year. Individual fees shall be assessed by the Secretary on 
     the basis of an estimate by the Secretary of the amount 
     necessary to ensure that the sum of the fees collected for 
     such fiscal year equals the amount so appropriated.
       ``(d) Fee Waiver or Reduction.--The Secretary shall grant a 
     waiver from or a reduction of a fee assessed under subsection 
     (a) if the Secretary finds that--
       ``(1) the fee to be paid will exceed the anticipated 
     present and future costs incurred by the Secretary in 
     carrying out the purposes described in subsection (b) (which 
     finding may be made by the Secretary using standard costs); 
     or
       ``(2) collection of the fee would result in substantial 
     hardship for the person assessed for the fee.
       ``(e) Assessment of Fees.--
       ``(1) Limitation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Fees may not be assessed under 
     subsection (a) for a fiscal year beginning after the first 
     applicable fiscal year unless the amount appropriated for 
     salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration for 
     such fiscal year is equal to or greater than the amount 
     appropriated for salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug 
     Administration for the first applicable fiscal year 
     multiplied by the adjustment factor applicable to the later 
     fiscal year.
       ``(B) Determinations.--In making determinations under this 
     paragraph for the fiscal years involved, the Secretary shall 
     exclude--
       ``(i) the amounts appropriated under subsection (f)(2) for 
     the fiscal years involved; and
       ``(ii) the amounts appropriated under section 736(g) for 
     such fiscal years.
       ``(2) Authority.--If under paragraph (1) the Secretary does 
     not have authority to assess fees under subsection (a) during 
     a portion of a fiscal year, but does at a later date in such 
     fiscal year have such authority, the Secretary, 
     notwithstanding the due date under such subsection for fees, 
     may assess and collect such fees at any time in such fiscal 
     year, without any modification in the rate of the fees.
       ``(f) Crediting and Availability of Fees.--
       ``(1) In general.--Fees collected for a fiscal year 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall be credited to the 
     appropriation account for salaries and expenses of the Food 
     and Drug Administration and shall be available in accordance 
     with appropriation Acts until expended without fiscal year 
     limitation. Such sums as may be necessary may be transferred 
     from the Food and Drug Administration salaries and expenses 
     appropriation account without fiscal year limitation to such 
     appropriation account for salaries and expenses with such 
     fiscal year limitation. The sums transferred shall be 
     available solely for the purposes described in paragraph (1) 
     of subsection (b), and the sums are subject to allocations 
     under paragraph (2) of such subsection.
       ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--
       ``(A) First fiscal year.--For the first applicable fiscal 
     year--
       ``(i) there is authorized to be appropriated for fees under 
     subsection (a) an amount equal to the amount of increase 
     determined under subsection (b)(1)(A) by the Secretary (which 
     amount shall be published in the Federal Register); and
       ``(ii) in addition, there is authorized to be appropriated 
     for fees under subsection (a) an amount determined by the 
     Secretary to be necessary to carry out the purpose described 
     in subsection (b)(1)(B) (which amount shall be so published).
       ``(B) Subsequent fiscal years.--For each of the 4 fiscal 
     years following the first applicable fiscal year--
       ``(i) there is authorized to be appropriated for fees under 
     subsection (a) an amount equal to the amount that applied 
     under subparagraph (A)(i) for the first applicable fiscal 
     year, except that such amount shall be adjusted under 
     paragraph (3)(A) for the fiscal year involved; and
       ``(ii) in addition, there is authorized to be appropriated 
     for fees under subsection (a) an amount equal to the amount 
     that applied under subparagraph (A)(ii) for the first 
     applicable fiscal year, except that such amount shall be 
     adjusted under paragraph (3)(B) for the fiscal year involved.
       ``(C) Supplemental authorization of appropriations.--In 
     addition to sums authorized to be appropriated under 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated, for the purposes described in subsection 
     (b)(1)(A), such sums as may be necessary for the first 
     applicable fiscal year and each of the 4 subsequent fiscal 
     years.
       ``(3) Adjustments.--
       ``(A) Agency cost of resources.--For each fiscal year other 
     than the first applicable fiscal year, the amount that 
     applied under paragraph (2)(A)(i) for the first applicable 
     fiscal year shall be multiplied by the adjustment factor.
       ``(B) Research program.--For each fiscal year other than 
     the first applicable fiscal year, the amount that applied 
     under paragraph (2)(A)(ii) for the first applicable fiscal 
     year shall be adjusted by the Secretary (and as adjusted 
     shall be published in the Federal Register) to reflect the 
     greater of--
       ``(i) the total percentage change that occurred since the 
     beginning of the first applicable fiscal year in the Consumer 
     Price

[[Page S1897]]

     Index for All Urban Consumers (all items; United States city 
     average); or
       ``(ii) the total percentage change that occurred since the 
     beginning of the first applicable fiscal year in basic pay 
     under the General Schedule in accordance with section 5332 of 
     title 5, United States Code, as adjusted by any locality-
     based comparability payment pursuant to section 5304 of such 
     title for Federal employees stationed in the District of 
     Columbia.
       ``(4) Offset.--Any amount of fees collected for a fiscal 
     year under subsection (a) that exceeds the amount of fees 
     specified in appropriation Acts for such fiscal year shall be 
     credited to the appropriation account of the Food and Drug 
     Administration as provided in paragraph (1), and shall be 
     subtracted from the amount of fees that would otherwise be 
     authorized to be collected under this section pursuant to 
     appropriation Acts for a subsequent fiscal year.
       ``(g) Collection of Unpaid Fees.--In any case in which the 
     Secretary does not receive payment of a fee assessed under 
     subsection (a) within 30 days after the fee is due, such fee 
     shall be treated as a claim of the United States Government 
     subject to subchapter II of chapter 37 of title 31, United 
     States Code.
       ``(h) Construction.--This section may not be construed as 
     requiring that the number of full-time equivalent positions 
     in the Department of Health and Human Services, for officers, 
     employers, and advisory committees not engaged in carrying 
     out section 409 with respect to genetic food additives be 
     reduced to offset the number of officers, employees, and 
     advisory committees so engaged.
       ``(i) Definition of Adjustment Factor.--
       ``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `adjustment 
     factor' applicable to a fiscal year means the lower of--
       ``(A) the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (all 
     items; United States city average) for April of the preceding 
     fiscal year divided by such Index for April of the first 
     applicable fiscal year; or
       ``(B) the total of discretionary budget authority provided 
     for programs in categories other than the defense category 
     for the preceding fiscal year (as reported in the Office of 
     Management and Budget sequestration preview report, if 
     available, required under section 254(c) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     904(c))) divided by such budget authority for the first 
     applicable fiscal year (as reported in the Office of 
     Management and Budget final sequestration report submitted 
     for such year under section 254(f) of such Act).
       ``(2) Budget authority; category.--In this subsection, the 
     terms `budget authority' and `category' have the meanings 
     given such terms in section 250 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900).''.

     SEC. 5. RULEMAKING; EFFECTIVE DATE; PREVIOUSLY UNREGULATED 
                   MARKETED ADDITIVES.

       (a) Rulemaking; Effective Date.--
       (1) Rulemaking.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall by regulation establish criteria for carrying 
     out section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 349) in accordance with the amendments made by 
     section 3, and criteria for carrying out section 409A of such 
     Act (as added by section 4).
       (2) Effective date.--Such amendments take effect on the 
     first day of the first fiscal year that begins after the date 
     of promulgation of the final regulation described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (b) Previously Unregulated Marketed Additives.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of a genetic food additive (as 
     defined in section 201(kk)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(kk)(4))) that in the United 
     States was in commercial use in food as of the day before the 
     date on which the final regulation described in subsection 
     (a) is promulgated, the amendments made by this Act apply to 
     the additive on the expiration of the 2-year period beginning 
     on the date on which the final regulation is promulgated, 
     subject to paragraph (2).
       (2) User fees.--With respect to a genetic food additive 
     described in paragraph (1), such paragraph does not waive the 
     applicability of section 409A of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act to a petition filed under section 409(b)(1) of 
     such Act (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(1)) that is filed before the 
     expiration of the 2-year period described in such 
     paragraph.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM:
  S. 2316. A bill to authorize the lease of real and personal property 
under the jurisdiction of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                    commercial space partnership act

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Commercial Space Partnership Act--legislation to encourage the 
commercial development of space through the long term lease of real and 
personal property held by the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA).
  The Cox Commission Report identified the need to expand domestic 
launch capacity to meet the rapidly growing demand for commercial U.S. 
launch services. It is vital that we increase our domestic launch 
capacity, reduce our dependence on foreign launch providers and help 
eliminate the transfer of critical U.S. technology. The Cox Report 
specifically recommended that congressional committees ``report 
legislation to encourage and stimulate further the expansion of such 
capacity of competition.''
  Mr. President, the Commercial Space Partnership Act is the third 
piece of legislation I have introduced with the goal of increasing our 
domestic launch capacity. The first was the Commercial Space Act, which 
became law in 1998. The Act helped break the federal government's 
monopoly on space travel by establishing a licensing framework for the 
private sector's reusable launch vehicles. It also provided for the 
conversion of excess ballistic missiles into space transportation 
vehicles, thus helping to reduce our nation's cost of access to space.
  Last year, along with a similar bipartisan coalition, I introduced 
the Spaceport Investment Act. This bill would allow spaceports to issue 
tax-free bonds to attract private sector investment dollars for launch 
infrastructure. It achieves the dual purpose of reducing pressure on 
the federal budget while stimulating this crucial industry.
  Mr. President, the third leg of this effort is the Commercial Space 
Partnership Act. Presently, NASA holds real and personal property that 
would be invaluable in developing new domestic launch resources. At the 
same time, however, NASA has no appropriations with which to cover the 
costs that result from integrating new commercial launch facilities 
into its existing infrastructure. The Commercial Space Partnership Act 
is designed to resolve this problem by allowing public and private 
interests with development money to lease property from NASA for the 
purpose of expanding commercial launch capacity, and by permitting NASA 
to make use of some of the lease proceeds to cover the resulting costs 
it incurs.
  The Commercial Space Partnership Act will empower NASA to assist the 
commercial space industry in expanding the domestic launch capacity at 
no cost to the taxpayer. Under this new lease authority, NASA will 
receive fair market value for its property and will further be 
empowered to apply the lease proceeds to cover the full costs resulting 
from the integration of the new commercial launch facilities into 
NASA's existing infrastructure. The Act further provides that any lease 
proceeds in excess of NASA's full costs shall be forwarded to the U.S. 
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
  The fair market value approach also ensures that NASA property will 
be leased to industry at a price which is comparable to other similar 
commercial properties. NASA's property will thereby be leased in a fair 
and equitable manner that will give in an unfair advantage to those 
with preexisting launch facilities in commercial locations.
  Mr. President, the Commercial Space Partnership Act can only 
encourage and stimulate the domestic launch capacity of our country. I 
urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this important effort by 
co-sponsoring this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Craig):
  S. 2317. A bill to provide incentives to encourage stronger truth in 
sentencing of violent offenders, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


             stop allowing felons early release (SAFER) Act

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Robb):
  S. 2318. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate 
good time credits for prisoners serving a sentence for a crime of 
violence, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                  100 percent truth-in-sentencing act

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I offer legislation today that I 
introduced previously but on which I was not able to get action during 
a previous Congress, and that is legislation dealing with truth in 
sentencing.
  Let me talk about some folks who have committed violent acts in this 
country. Recently, I read in a local paper here that a man named 
Kenneth Lodowski is walking around this metropolitan area. He was 
sentenced to die in 1984. He murdered two people--one

[[Page S1898]]

an off-duty police officer, and the other a clerk in a convenience 
store. He was sentenced to die in 1984 for two murders. The prosecuting 
attorney called the murders ``as vicious a crime as I have experienced 
in my 24 years as State's attorney.''
  That is the crime.
  After a series of appeals, this man, who was sentenced to death for 
two murders, had the sentence changed to life imprisonment without 
parole, then changed again, then changed again. Finally, the sentence 
was 25 years in prison. After 16 years in prison, this person is 
walking around the streets of this metropolitan area--free.
  Why? Here is the reason. If you commit murder in this country, on 
average, you are going to be sentenced to about 21 years in prison. On 
average, a murderer will be sentenced to about 21 years in prison but 
will serve, on average, only 10 years behind bars.
  Most people will be startled to hear that. But let me say that again. 
The average sentence served by a murderer in this country is about 10 
years. Why? Because people are let out early. Murderers go to prison, 
and they get ``good time,'' time off for good behavior: If you want to 
get out early, just be good in prison, and we will put you back on the 
streets.
  What happens when you are put back on the streets? You read the 
stories. I have spoken a number of times about Bettina Pruckmayr, a 
young woman who moved to town with great expectations, a young lawyer. 
She was abducted in a carjacking, then taken to an ATM machine to 
extract cash, and then stabbed 30 times in a horrible death. This 
young, 26-year-old attorney who was just beginning her career in this 
town, was stabbed 30 times by a man who had previously been convicted 
of rape, armed robbery, and murder. That man was on the streets 
legally, let out by a criminal justice system that does not keep people 
who we know are violent behind bars--let out early.
  Or Jonathan Hall, about whom I have spoken in this Chamber, 13 years 
old, stabbed by a man who moved into his neighborhood, stabbed 60 times 
with a screwdriver, thrown down an embankment into a pond. When they 
found young Jonathan, after being stabbed 60 times, they found dirt and 
grass between his fingers because even though he had been stabbed 60 
times, this 13-year-old boy had tried to crawl out of that pond into 
which this fellow had thrown him. His clenched fists described his will 
to survive. But he did not; he died.
  Jonathan's murderer was a career criminal. He had been convicted 
previously of kidnapping and murder, but let out, and was living in the 
neighborhood and able to murder this 13-year-old boy--paroled just 1 
year before he took Jonathan's life.
  And Julie Schultz from ND, a woman whom I know fairly well, the 
mother of three, who stopped at a highway rest area one day on a 
pleasant, tranquil afternoon in North Dakota. She was attacked by a man 
who tried to rape her, slashed her throat, cutting her vocal cords, and 
left her for dead at a rest area on Highway 2 in northern North Dakota.

  She survived the attack. In fact, I saw Julie just 2 weeks ago at the 
Minneapolis Airport. She survived the attack but has lasting scars and 
difficulties as a result of that attack.
  Who attacked Julie? The same kind of person who attacked others 
around this country--people who we knew were violent, were put behind 
bars, and let out early because the criminal justice system says: You 
only have to spend 10 years, on average, in jail if you commit a murder 
in this country. We will sentence you to 21 years, but you only have to 
spend 10 years behind bars because we will let you out early if you are 
good.
  The fellow who slashed the throat of Julie Schultz served 7 years of 
a life sentence in the State of Washington before being released, 
before being on Highway 2, on an afternoon in North Dakota, able to do 
what he did to Julie Schultz.
  Sara Paulson, 8 years old, went out for a bike ride one day and never 
came back. Her body was found under a pine tree less than 200 yards 
from her home. She had been sexually assaulted and strangled to death. 
Her murderer had been previously sentenced to prison for rape but was 
paroled after serving less than half of his sentence.
  I am introducing legislation today, cosponsored by Senator Craig of 
Idaho, and another piece of legislation cosponsored by Senator Craig of 
Idaho and Senator Robb of Virginia. The point of it is very simple. I 
believe in the criminal justice system we ought to have different 
standards for those who commit acts of violence. Everyone in this 
country who commits acts of violence ought to understand: You go to 
prison, and your address is going to be your jail cell until the end of 
your sentence.
  Do you know what the prison folks say to us? We need mechanisms by 
which we can persuade inmates to behave in prison. The mechanism is to 
dangle before them an early-out, time off for good behavior. So if we 
are able to reward them for behaving in prison, we are able to manage 
them.
  I say to them, what about managing them on the streets?
  As I stated, there is a fellow who is walking the streets in this 
metropolitan area now, after 16 years, who killed a policeman and 
killed a clerk in a store, because he was released early.
  What about the people on the streets who are going to meet that 
fellow? What about their safety? Who is managing that violent offender 
now? Who managed the violent offender who viciously attacked Julie 
Schultz? Who managed the behavior of the man who violently attacked 
Jonathan Hall? Who was watching the fellow who violently attacked 
Bettina Pruckmayr?
  The answer is, nobody.
  Let us segregate and separate those who commit violent acts in this 
country from those who are nonviolent offenders. Let's incarcerate them 
all. I do not mind early release for nonviolent offenders. But for 
violent offenders, we ought to have a society in which everyone 
understands: If you commit an act of violence, the prison cell is your 
address to the end of your sentence. No good time off for good 
behavior, no getting back to the streets early. You are going to be in 
prison to serve your term.
  It is the only way, it seems to me, to protect innocent folks, such 
as Bettina Pruckmayr and Jonathan Hall and Julie Schultz, and so many 
others who have been victimized by people we know were violent and 
should have been in a prison cell but, instead, were on the streets 
early because prison authorities let them out early with ``good time'' 
credits and ``good time'' releases.
  Let's stop it. My legislation will do that. It says to the States: 
You must do it. If you do not, you are going to lose certain grants 
under the Criminal Justice Act. Is that tough? Yes. But we must, it 
seems to me, take these steps to change this.
  Again, let me conclude. My colleague from Illinois, I know, wants the 
floor. But early releases--these are State prisons, incidentally--
sexual assault: Sentenced for 10 years, on average, and you are out in 
5; robbery: Sentenced for 8 years, on average, and you are out in 4; 
murder: Sentenced for 21 years, on average, and you are out in 10.
  Everyone in this Chamber knows the horrors of crime, if not 
personally with them and their family, then a neighbor, a friend, a 
relative.

  We know the current system isn't working. Too many violent offenders 
are sent back to America's streets. There is a way to stop that. Yes, I 
know we have too many people in prison; But the way to be smart about 
it is to segregate those who are violent offenders from those who are 
nonviolent. This piece of legislation would start us doing that.
  If any of us, God forbid, would lose a loved one or relative because 
of a vicious crime committed by someone who should have been in prison 
but was let out early, we would spend the rest of our days trying to 
pass legislation like this. We ought to do it.
  Let me again say, the piece of legislation I began to talk about 
today, because of the escape in Chula Vista, CA, has resulted in a 
convicted murderer walking around on the loose, a man named Prestridge. 
A violent murderer supposed to be spending the rest of his life behind 
bars is now loose because he was being transported by a private company 
and incompetence allowed these violent offenders, two of them, to 
escape--if we pass Jeanna's bill, named after the young 11-year-old who 
was violently murdered by Kyle Bell, if we pass that piece of 
legislation, I won't

[[Page S1899]]

be here speaking about those circumstances again because they won't 
happen again. I hope we will be able to address both of those pieces of 
legislation in the remaining months of this Congress.
  I thank my colleague from Illinois. I wanted to introduce this 
legislation and talk about it at some length today. I know he is here 
to talk as well. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the remarks made by 
my friend and colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan. I know his 
feelings are heartfelt about this issue. I know he speaks from the 
heart when he tells us about these terrible tragedies to which many 
families in America have been subjected. I hope he feels, as I do, that 
when it comes to violent crime, crimes involving guns and weapons, 
sexual assault, and the like, we should have no tolerance for that 
conduct. And when it comes to sentencing those responsible for the 
crimes, we should do it in a manner to protect American citizens and 
families across the board. I agree with him on that score. I think if 
we are ever going to stop the plague of violent crime in this country, 
we have to deal with enforcement of the law in a realistic way to 
protect families.
  Two weeks ago, I was stuck in an airport in our State capital, my 
hometown of Springfield, which tends to be part of the job description 
of being a Senator. The director of the Department of Corrections, Don 
Snyder, came up and said hello, and we had a chance to chat about 
incarceration in my home State of Illinois.
  There are currently, if I remember the figures off the top of my 
head, about 45,000 people incarcerated in the State prison system in 
Illinois. He told me a couple of things that were interesting. Each 
year, we release from the Illinois prison system over 20,000 inmates. 
We have this false notion that once a person is incarcerated, they are 
there forever.
  As the Senator from North Dakota has indicated, even for the most 
violent criminals, that is not the case. About half of them come out 
each year. When you consider all the crimes for which people are 
incarcerated, they are back on the street. The question we obviously 
have to ask is whether they will commit another crime. Unfortunately, 
about half of them do. Those crimes, when repeated, test our resolve to 
not only have a system that involves punishment but, where appropriate, 
rehabilitation.

  This director of our Department of Corrections gave me an 
illustration. He said, if you consider a crime involving drugs to be 
the possession of a thimbleful of cocaine, in 1987, the Illinois prison 
system had 400 people incarcerated for the possession of a thimbleful 
of cocaine. In the year 2000, we have 9,100 inmates incarcerated for 
the possession of a thimbleful of cocaine. He said: Conceding the fact 
that we want to end the drug scourge in our country and we want to be 
effective in doing it, the average drug criminal in Illinois is 
incarcerated for 7\1/2\ months. It is hard to believe that we are going 
to teach many lessons in 7\1/2\ months, but that is the average.
  Here is the thing that is troubling. During the period of that 
incarceration in prison for the commission of the drug crime, there is 
virtually nothing done to deal with the underlying addiction of the 
inmate. So when they are released in 7\1/2\ months or a little longer, 
they are back on the streets, still addicted, likely to run back into 
the same drug culture and be exposed to the same forces that put them 
in prison in the first place.
  He asked me a valid question: Why aren't we doing something, while we 
have these people who have been convicted and incarcerated, to try to 
get them off drugs?
  I think that is a reasonable suggestion. I am not for letting violent 
criminals out early, but for those who are in for drug crimes, we ought 
to have a policy nationwide that deals with some effort to stop their 
addiction, to end their addiction, to try, when they are released, to 
give them a chance to lead a normal life that doesn't include another 
victim at some later point. I hope we address that.
  He also indicated to me that over 80 percent of the women in the 
Illinois prison system have children. And while they are in prison 
separated from those children, oftentimes those children are in 
terrible circumstances. We saw in the State of Michigan a few weeks ago 
when a 6-year-old boy took a gun to school and killed a little 
classmate. Then we find his father was in prison. His mother is 
addicted. He was stuck in a home where he slept on a couch. No one paid 
attention to him. Frankly, a gun was left on a table where he could get 
his hands on it and take it to school.
  That kind of neglect occurs too often in America. It is invited in a 
situation where mothers are incarcerated and no one is there to care 
for their kids.
  This Director of Corrections said: Can we keep the link between the 
mother and child alive? We find that the women who are inmates really 
want to turn their lives around when they think their family can stay 
together and has a future. We know that the kids would like to keep a 
relationship with the mother who may turn her life around.
  These are troubling questions. In a nation where we incarcerate more 
per capita than any other country in the world, we have to face these 
realities. People are coming out of prison. When they come out, we have 
to wonder whether there has been a part of their experience in prison 
that will lead to a better life for them and a safer America and less 
recidivism.

  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. I agree with what the Senator has said. Nearly half of 
the people incarcerated in this country are violent offenders, half are 
not. It seems to me we ought to be smarter in the way we incarcerate 
them, those half whom we know are violent. For those we know are 
violent, we should not be incentivizing them to move to the streets 
earlier. We ought to try to find ways to keep them in prison to the end 
of their term. Those who are nonviolent they have to be punished, serve 
their time. But they are not violent and are not a threat to people.
  Senator John Glenn used to talk about this in the Senate. He used to 
bring with him a model of a Quonset hut, apparently made in Ohio. He 
said: This is the kind of place I lived in during the Korean war. My 
wife and I lived in one of these huts various places around the world. 
It was Marine housing, among other things. He said, for nonviolent 
offenders, we could put up some barbed wire and build Quonset huts. It 
doesn't take a fortune to create incarceration compounds for nonviolent 
offenders. We don't have to put them in lockups that are massively 
secure, lockups that cost a fortune. Use those lockups for violent 
offenders; then give yourself enough space to keep violent offenders 
behind bars to the end of their term.
  That is the point I was making. I don't disagree with anything the 
Senator from Illinois said about the crime factor inside the prisons 
and about the circumstances these days of mandatory sentencing and 
crimes that have been nonviolent that have crowded the prison system. I 
thank the Senator for his comments.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I appreciate the 
importance of the issue of incarceration and corrections.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself and Mr. Allard):
  S. 2319. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
establish a voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug Plan under which 
eligible Medicare beneficiaries may elect to receive coverage under the 
Rx Option for outpatient prescription drugs and a combined deductible; 
to the Committee on Finance.


         voluntary medicare prescription drug plan act of 2000

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
a bill entitled the ``Voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Act of 
2000.'' This bill allows seniors to enroll in a new program under 
Medicare which will provide for prescription drug coverage. This is an 
issue about which, as you know, many seniors are very concerned.
  Seniors who join this plan would have a combined Part A and Part B 
deductible of $675, which would include all hospital, medical, and drug 
expenses. After the deductible is met, seniors would receive 50-percent 
coverage of their prescription drug costs

[[Page S1900]]

up to $5,000. If a senior has $2,000 in expenses for prescription 
drugs, $1,000 of that would be paid for under this plan.
  I have spoken to senior groups and health care providers, both in 
Washington as well as in my State over the past several weeks, about 
this proposal. The response has been very enthusiastic. Seniors want a 
prescription drug benefit. Doctors and nurses understand the importance 
of providing coverage for seniors because of the expense of 
prescription drugs in this country. It would be a victory for seniors 
and for health care in this country if we could provide this coverage 
to them.
  I have had discussions with many of my colleagues in the Senate who 
are working on this very issue. We have all heard from our constituents 
about the importance of prescription drugs. Senators Breaux and Frist 
have included prescription drugs in their overall Medicare reform 
package. Senators Kennedy, Snowe, Wyden, Grams, and Jeffords all have 
proposed various plans that provide some level of prescription drug 
coverage in Medicare, and many others are working on separate proposals 
of their own.
  In a recent press conference, President Clinton and Senator Daschle 
outlined their goals for prescription drug coverage. Leaving the 
politics aside, the fact that elected leaders from both parties are 
looking at this issue of prescription drug coverage is good news for 
the senior citizens of America. I have talked with several of my 
Republican colleagues, and it is clear to me there is overwhelming 
support for allowing seniors to have this choice. The only question 
among us all is how we can responsibly structure such a program.
  I have heard from seniors in my State about what they are looking for 
in a prescription drug plan.
  First, they are concerned about the solvency of the Medicare program. 
They want a program that does not add some huge financial burden to the 
trust fund which will be passed on to their grandchildren. They do not 
want to increase the national debt, either. Yes, seniors are concerned 
about the national debt. Ask them the next time you speak to a seniors 
group.
  The President's proposal, as it is written, blows a $168 billion hole 
in the trust fund, threatening its solvency.
  Second, seniors do not want new premiums. My plan requires no premium 
hike for seniors. Zero. The President's plan requires a $51 annual 
premium increase.
  I will repeat that. Seniors do not want to blow a hole in the 
national debt. They do not want to inflate the debt. Yet the 
President's proposal adds $168 billion that is going to come out of 
that trust fund, threatening its solvency. And seniors do not want more 
premiums. My plan has no increase in premiums; the President's plan, 
$51--just to start--annual premium increase.

  The guiding principles of this plan, which may come as a shock to 
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, are the same 
principles as those of the President and the distinguished minority 
leader for any prescription drug plan. I want to repeat the six 
principles the minority leader has introduced on behalf of the 
President. I am going to add three more to those six and make it even 
better. I do not know why we cannot have almost unanimous support for 
this piece of legislation.
  First of all, under the plan the Senate Democrats are committed to 
passing this year, there are six basic principles. I agree with them 
all.
  No. 1, it is voluntary. Medicare beneficiaries who now have 
dependable, affordable prescription drug coverage should have the 
option of keeping that coverage.
  No. 2, it is accessible to all beneficiaries. I agree with that. A 
hallmark of Medicare is that all beneficiaries, even those in rural or 
underserved communities, have access to dependable health care. It 
should be accessible to everybody. I agree with the second principle.
  No. 3, it is designed to provide meaningful protection and bargaining 
power for seniors. A Medicare drug benefit should assist seniors with 
the high cost of drugs and protect them against excessive, out-of-
pocket expenses. I agree with that.
  No. 4, it should be affordable to all beneficiaries, and it should be 
affordable to the Medicare program itself.
  Medicare should contribute enough toward the prescription drug 
premium to make it affordable and attractive for all beneficiaries and 
to ensure the viability of the benefit. I agree with that.
  No. 5, administered using private-sector entities and competitive 
purchasing techniques. In other words, the program is administered by 
using private sector entities and competitive purchasing techniques. 
The management of the prescription drug benefit should mirror the 
practices employed by private insurers. Discounts should be achieved 
through competition, not through price controls or regulation.
  I agree with that.
  We are five for five.
  No. 6, consistent with broader Medicare reform, the addition of a 
Medicare drug benefit should be consistent with an overall plan to 
strengthen and modernize Medicare. Medicare will face the same 
demographic strain as Social Security when the baby boomer generation 
retires. So it is consistent with broader Medicare reform.
  I agree with that.
  There are six principles I can support.
  I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join me 
now with three more principles I would add:
  No. 1, that the plan be revenue neutral to preserve and protect the 
financial integrity of the Medicare trust fund. In other words, it does 
not cost the Government any more money.
  No. 2, that the plan does not raise Medicare premiums. Their plan, 
$51 annually to seniors; my plan, zero. So no increase in premiums.
  And No. 3, that full benefits be provided, not in 2009, as the 
administration plan proposes, but in 2001, 8 years sooner.
  So my three principles--revenue neutral, do not raise the premiums, 
provide the benefits in 2001--those three principles enhance and 
strengthen the other six principles put forth by my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle.
  My plan accomplishes all three of the principles I have outlined.
  Let me briefly explain how it works.
  A senior already enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B--already enrolled 
in Part A, hospital, and Part B, doctor--will have the option of 
choosing my new voluntary prescription drug plan. It is their option. 
Nobody is mandated; they choose. It will cover 50 percent of their 
prescription drug costs toward the first $5,000 worth of prescription 
drugs. If they buy $4,000 worth of drugs--$2,000 for prescription 
drugs; $2,000 is covered.
  How do we do this? How do we make it work? Medicare Part A--under the 
old system, the current system--has a $776 deductible. Medicare Part B 
has a $100 deductible. In other words, if you go to the doctor, the 
first $100 you pay for; if you go to the hospital, the first $776 you 
pay for; the rest, Medicare pays. That is a total of $876 you will have 
to pay.
  My new plan would create one new deductible, combining those two 
deductibles of Part A and Part B into one deductible of $675, which 
would apply to all hospital costs, all doctor visits, and prescription 
drugs--50 cents on the dollar up to $5,000. And the prescription drug 
costs apply to the deductible, so every dollar you pay for a 
prescription moves you forward to meet the deductible.
  Once the $675 deductible is met by the Medicare recipient, Medicare 
then will pay 50 percent of the cost toward the first $5,000 worth of 
drugs the senior purchases.
  However, the senior could not purchase a Medigap plan that would pay 
for the $675 deductible. This must be paid for by the senior. But if 
you have a Medigap plan now as a senior, you will not need it.
  As a result, seniors would save about $550 under Medigap plans if 
they traded their current Medigap plan for my new prescription drug 
plan. Again, it is their option. It is voluntary. Seniors could even 
use their $550 in savings to pay the $675 deductible.
  If you are a senior out there, and you have Part A, Part B, and you 
are paying $675 toward the deductible, and you have Medigap insurance 
of $550, you now can put the $550 toward the $675 to meet your 
deductible. So you are going to have $550 in savings. You can put that 
toward the $675, and you are already two-thirds of the way there.
  But how do you get the cost savings?
  As my colleagues are aware, according to the National Bipartisan 
Commission on the Future of Medicare, the

[[Page S1901]]

Federal Government pays about $1,400 more per senior if the senior owns 
a Medigap plan that covers their Part A and Part B deductible. This, 
generally, is because of our overutilization of hospital and doctor 
visits by the senior. The savings result because Medicare will not have 
to pay this $1,400 per person per year out of the trust fund.
  As I mentioned, all hospital, physician, and prescription drug costs 
would count toward this $675 deductible. Once it was met, the senior 
would receive regular, above-the-deductible Medicare coverage, just as 
you get now. Or if you worked out the numbers and decided against my 
plan, then you would not have to select it; it is your choice.
  I believe the vast majority of seniors will benefit from this plan. 
In fact, every senior with a Medigap plan will definitely benefit. Any 
senior with a prescription drug expenditure of more than $15 a month 
will benefit. Today, the Medicare Part A and Part B deductible totals 
$876, which most seniors cover by an average $1,611 Medigap insurance 
premium.
  These estimates, as well as the estimate that the bill is budget 
neutral, come from Mr. Guy King, formerly chief actuary for the Health 
Care Financing Administration under President Clinton. I received a 
letter just this morning from Mr. King, from which I would like to 
quote:

       Dear Senator Smith: This is in response to your letter of 
     March 9, 2000, asking for my analysis of legislation you 
     intend to introduce in the Senate. The proposed legislation 
     establishes a voluntary prescription drug benefit, the 
     Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, under the Medicare program.
       Under the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, the current Part 
     A and Part B deductibles would be replaced by a single 
     deductible of $675 which would also be applicable to the new 
     prescription drug benefit. The Medicare program would pay 
     fifty percent of the cost of prescription drugs, up to a 
     maximum of $2,500 after satisfaction of the deductible.

  He goes on to describe it.
  Quoting further:

       As you requested, I performed an analysis of the proposed 
     legislation. This analysis is based on Medicare and 
     prescription drug data I obtained from the Health Care 
     Financing Administration. My analysis indicates that the 
     Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, as described above, would be 
     cost-neutral to the Medicare program if it were made 
     available on a voluntary basis to all beneficiaries except 
     those also covered by Medicaid.

  It is signed by Guy King.
  Let me just conclude speaking on this bill by saying, the benefits in 
this plan are delivered by private companies and regional entities, 
such as pharmaceutical benefit managers. These entities would negotiate 
with large drug companies and provide the drugs to Medicare seniors.
  Finally, according to the actuaries who reviewed the legislation, 
there will be no adverse selection. Both the healthy and the sick will 
have an incentive to choose this plan. Everybody is in.
  There are many different methods of providing prescription drug 
coverage for seniors, but I urge my colleagues--I plead with my 
colleagues--to look to the revenue-neutral methods that fund this 
benefit by the elimination of waste in the present system. I urge my 
colleagues to resist the temptation to raise Medicare premiums on the 
people who can least afford it.
  I have vivid memories of seniors rocking Mr. Rostenkowski's car a few 
years ago when he decided to raise Medicare premiums. Let's look at it 
more specifically. The House's fiscal year 2001 budget--this is 
important--sets $40 billion aside for prescription drugs. In the 
Senate, we are expected to do a budget that is going to set aside $20 
billion.

  We don't need either under my plan. We don't need any more money. We 
don't need $20 billion. We don't need $40 billion. We don't need $2 
billion. We don't need any billions. Let's use the money for debt 
reduction or tax credits for the uninsured rather than providing for 
prescription drugs, when we could use my revenue-neutral prescription 
plan instead.
  I must say, in all candor, some of the deflections I have had put in 
my way on this issue by some in this body are disturbing. I will not 
get into details. I want people to listen and look at this plan. It is 
a good plan. I would like to have the opportunity to be able to talk 
about it in more detail with some of my colleagues, because it makes no 
sense to take $40 billion max, anywhere from $20 billion to $40 
billion, and put it into this prescription plan when we don't need to. 
Let's put it on the debt or let's buy something else with it that is 
worthwhile. We don't need it.
  A neutral plan that does not raise premiums, that takes effect in 
2001 is a good plan. It is a good idea. We need to implement it.
  I urge my colleagues to take a look at this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. King be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              King Associates,

                                    Annapolis, MD, March 28, 2000.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: This is in response to your letter of 
     March 9, 2000 asking for my analysis of legislation you 
     intend to introduce in the Senate. The proposed legislation 
     establishes a voluntary prescription drug benefit, the 
     Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, under the Medicare program.
       Under the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, the current Part 
     A and Part B deductibles would be replaced by a single 
     deductible of $675 which would also be applicable to the new 
     prescription drug benefit. The Medicare program would pay 
     fifty percent of the cost of prescription drugs, up to a 
     maximum of $2,500 after satisfaction of the deductible. A 
     beneficiary who chooses the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan 
     would not be allowed to purchase a Medicare supplement policy 
     that fills in the $675 deductible, so special Medicare 
     supplement policies for those who choose the option would be 
     allowed.
       The Medicare Prescription Drug Plan would be available, on 
     a voluntary basis, to any Medicare beneficiary not also 
     covered by Medicaid. The possibility of anti-selection is an 
     important consideration for a plan that is available to all 
     Medicare beneficiaries as an option. I believe that the 
     design features of the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, as 
     outlined in your legislation, minimize the impact of anti-
     selection.
       As you requested, I performed an analysis of the proposed 
     legislation. This analysis is based on Medicare and 
     prescription drug data that I obtained from the Health Care 
     Financing Administration (HCFA). My analysis indicates that 
     the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, as described above, 
     would be cost-neutral to the Medicare program if it were made 
     available on a voluntary basis to all beneficiaries except 
     those also covered by Medicaid.
       If you should have any questions regarding my analysis, 
     please don't hesitate to call.
           Sincerely,
                                             Roland E. (Guy) King,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Frist, Mrs. 
        Lincoln, and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 2320. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
refundable tax credit for health insurance costs, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


         health coverage, access, relief, and equity (CARE) Act

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with my 
colleagues in introducing the Health Coverage, Access, Relief and 
Equity Act or Health CARE Act. This legislation will provide low-income 
Americans with a refundable tax credit for the purchase of health 
insurance coverage. This effort marks the first major bipartisan, 
bicameral, market-based initiative on behalf of the uninsured since 
1994.
  I believe the issue of access to health coverage for the uninsured 
must be a top national priority. The uninsured often go without needed 
health care or face unaffordable medical bills. Insurance coverage 
guarantees providers reimbursement for their services, and it helps 
contain costs by encouraging more appropriate use of the health care 
system.
  Unfortunately, the main source of coverage--employer-based 
insurance--is simply not available to a significant number of working 
Americans and their families. High health care cost increases have 
caused more people to become uninsured.
  New Census Bureau data indicate that there are now 44 million 
Americans with no health coverage, an increase of one million from last 
year. This number is unacceptable for a prosperous nation with a strong 
economy.
  A new poll indicates that our bill is consistent with the main health 
care concern of average voters. When asked what they think is the most 
important problem about our health care system that the government 
should address, the top choice--selected by 29 percent of those 
sampled--was universal coverage.

[[Page S1902]]

  I believe the legislation we're introducing today can provide the 
necessary foundation for achieving the goal of expanded health 
coverage. The Health CARE tax credit is targeted to those who are most 
in need of help, due to their lack of income, access to subsidized 
employment-based coverage, and ineligibility for public programs.
  About one-half of the full-time working poor were uninsured last 
year. Many of these individuals work for small firms. In my own state 
of Vermont, only 27 percent of workers in firms employing fewer than 10 
people are offered health insurance.
  These uninsured working Americans have one thing in common: they are 
low wage workers--with nearly 70 percent making less than two times the 
minimum wage. Without additional resources, health insurance coverage 
is either beyond their reach or only purchased by giving up other basic 
necessities of life.
  The Health CARE Act will provide a refundable tax credit to help low 
and moderate-income individuals and families purchase health insurance.
  The legislation will provide a refundable tax credit of $1,000 for 
the purchase of individual coverage to those with adjusted gross 
incomes of up to $35,000 and it will provide a $2,000 credit for the 
purchase of family coverage for those with AGI of up to $55,000.
  The initial estimates show that this proposal will help almost 9 
million Americans. It will provide health coverage for 3.2 million 
Americans who are presently uninsured and give needed financial relief 
to another 5.5 million low-income Americans who are using their scarce 
dollars to buy individual health insurance policies.
  Realizing that insurance coverage is not the single answer for our 
nation's health access problems, we are also developing additional 
components to the Health CARE Act which will focus on improving access 
to health care services and safety net providers, such as community 
health centers and rural health clinics.
  We must do whatever we can to ensure that the Safety Net already in 
place becomes stronger and more reliable. Just last week, the 
Subcommittee on Public Health held a hearing on three of our nation's 
safety provider programs--the Consolidated Health Centers program, the 
National Health Service Corps, and the Community Access program.
  I look forward to working with Senator Frist on shoring up the Safety 
Net, and together we plan to introduce an additional component to the 
CARE Act on Safety Net providers that will become part of the larger 
health CARE Package.
  Our goal for this legislation is to maximize health coverage, tax 
equity, and cost efficiency, and we believe it should be included as an 
important element in any tax package that Congress enacts this year.
  The Health CARE Act will increase the number of Americans who have 
health insurance coverage by filling key gaps in the current system and 
supporting a system of health care financial and delivery that 
complements the employment-based system.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will take a look at this. I hope 
they will join me in making sure we do what must be done to make sure 
the people who need it the most gets it.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2320

       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 ``Health Coverage, Access, 
     Relief, and Equity (C.A.R.E.) Act''.

     SEC. 2. REFUNDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     refundable personal credits) is amended by redesignating 
     section 35 as section 36 and inserting after section 34 the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 35. HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual, 
     there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by 
     this subtitle for the taxable year an amount equal to the 
     amount paid during the taxable year for qualified health 
     insurance for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse and 
     dependents.
       ``(b) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Maximum dollar amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--The amount allowed as a credit under 
     subsection (a) to the taxpayer for the taxable year shall not 
     exceed the sum of the monthly limitations for coverage months 
     during such taxable year.
       ``(B) Monthly limitation.--The monthly limitation for each 
     coverage month during the taxable year is the amount equal to 
     1/12 of--
       ``(i) in the case of self-only coverage, $1,000, and
       ``(ii) in the case of family coverage, $2,000.
       ``(2) Phaseout of credit.--
       ``(A) In general.--The amount which would (but for this 
     paragraph) be taken into account under subsection (a) shall 
     be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount determined 
     under subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Amount of reduction.--The amount determined under 
     this subparagraph is the amount which bears the same ratio to 
     the amount which would be so taken into account as--
       ``(i) the excess of--

       ``(I) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for 
     such taxable year, over
       ``(II) $35,000 ($55,000 in the case of family coverage), 
     bears to

       ``(ii) $10,000.
       ``(C) Modified adjusted gross income.--The term `modified 
     adjusted gross income' means adjusted gross income 
     determined--
       ``(i) without regard to this section and sections 911, 931, 
     and 933, and
       ``(ii) after application of sections 86, 135, 137, 219, 
     221, and 469.
       ``(3) Coordination with deduction for health insurance 
     costs of self-employed individuals.--In the case of a 
     taxpayer who is eligible to deduct any amount under section 
     162(l) for the taxable year, this section shall apply only if 
     the taxpayer elects not to claim any amount as a deduction 
     under such section for such year.
       ``(c) Coverage Month Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `coverage month' means, with 
     respect to an individual, any month if--
       ``(A) as of the first day of such month such individual is 
     covered by qualified health insurance, and
       ``(B) the premium for coverage under such insurance for 
     such month is paid by the taxpayer.
       ``(2) Employer-subsidized coverage.--
       ``(A) In general.--Such term shall not include any month 
     for which such individual is eligible to participate in any 
     subsidized health plan (within the meaning of section 
     162(l)(2)) maintained by any employer of the taxpayer or of 
     the spouse of the taxpayer.
       ``(B) Premiums to nonsubsidized plans.--If an employer of 
     the taxpayer or the spouse of the taxpayer maintains a health 
     plan which is not a subsidized health plan (as so defined) 
     and which constitutes qualified health insurance, employee 
     contributions to the plan shall be treated as amounts paid 
     for qualified health insurance.
       ``(3) Cafeteria plan and flexible spending account 
     beneficiaries.--Such term shall not include any month during 
     a taxable year if any amount is not includible in the gross 
     income of the taxpayer for such year under section 106 with 
     respect to--
       ``(A) a benefit chosen under a cafeteria plan (as defined 
     in section 125(d)), or
       ``(B) a benefit provided under a flexible spending or 
     similar arrangement.
       ``(4) Medicare and medicaid.--Such term shall not include 
     any month during a taxable year with respect to an individual 
     if, as of the first day of such month, such individual--
       ``(A) is eligible for any benefits under title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act, or
       ``(B) is eligible to participate in the program under title 
     XIX or XXI of such Act.
       ``(5) Certain other coverage.--Such term shall not include 
     any month during a taxable year with respect to an individual 
     if, as of the first day of such month, such individual is 
     eligible--
       ``(A) for benefits under chapter 17 of title 38, United 
     States Code,
       ``(B) for benefits under chapter 55 of title 10, United 
     States Code,
       ``(C) to participate in the program under chapter 89 of 
     title 5, United States Code, or
       ``(D) for benefits under any medical care program under the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act or any other provision of 
     law.
       ``(6) Prisoners.--Such term shall not include any month 
     with respect to an individual if, as of the first day of such 
     month, such individual is imprisoned under Federal, State, or 
     local authority.
       ``(d) Qualified Health Insurance.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `qualified health insurance' means health 
     insurance coverage (as defined in section 9832(b)(1)(A)), 
     including coverage under a high deductible health plan (as 
     defined in section 220(c)(2)) or a COBRA continuation 
     provision (as defined in section 9832(d)(1)).
       ``(e) Medical Savings Account Contributions.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a deduction would (but for paragraph 
     (2)) be allowed under section 220 to the taxpayer for a 
     payment for the taxable year to the medical savings account 
     of an individual, subsection (a) shall be applied by treating 
     such payment as a payment for qualified health insurance for 
     such individual.
       ``(2) Denial of double benefit.--No deduction shall be 
     allowed under section 220 for that portion of the payments 
     otherwise allowable as a deduction under section 220 for the 
     taxable year which is equal to the

[[Page S1903]]

     amount of credit allowed for such taxable year by reason of 
     this subsection.
       ``(f) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Coordination with medical expense deduction.--The 
     amount which would (but for this paragraph) be taken into 
     account by the taxpayer under section 213 for the taxable 
     year shall be reduced by the credit (if any) allowed by this 
     section to the taxpayer for such year.
       ``(2) Denial of credit to dependents.--No credit shall be 
     allowed under this section to any individual with respect to 
     whom a deduction under section 151 is allowable to another 
     taxpayer for a taxable year beginning in the calendar year in 
     which such individual's taxable year begins.
       ``(3) Coordination with advance payment.--Rules similar to 
     the rules of section 32(g) shall apply to any credit to which 
     this section applies.
       ``(g) Expenses Must Be Substantiated.--A payment for 
     insurance to which subsection (a) applies may be taken into 
     account under this section only if the taxpayer substantiates 
     such payment in such form as the Secretary may prescribe.
       ``(h) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this section, including regulations under which--
       ``(1) an awareness campaign is established to educate the 
     public, insurance issuers, and agents or others who market 
     health insurance about the requirements and procedures under 
     this section, including--
       ``(A) criteria for insurance products and group health 
     coverage which constitute qualified health insurance under 
     this section, and
       ``(B) guidelines for marketing schemes and practices which 
     are appropriate and acceptable in connection with the credit 
     under this section, and
       ``(2) periodic reviews or audits of health insurance 
     policies and group health plans (and related promotional 
     marketing materials) which are marketed to eligible taxpayers 
     under this section are conducted for the purpose of 
     determining--
       ``(A) whether such policies and plans constitute qualified 
     health insurance under this section, and
       ``(B) whether offenses described in section 7276 occur.''.
       (b) Information Reporting.--
       (1) In general.--Subpart B of part III of subchapter A of 
     chapter 61 of such Code (relating to information concerning 
     transactions with other persons) is amended by inserting 
     after section 6050S the following new section:

     ``SEC. 6050T. RETURNS RELATING TO PAYMENTS FOR QUALIFIED 
                   HEALTH INSURANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--Any person who, in connection with a 
     trade or business conducted by such person, receives payments 
     during any calendar year from any individual for coverage of 
     such individual or any other individual under creditable 
     health insurance, shall make the return described in 
     subsection (b) (at such time as the Secretary may by 
     regulations prescribe) with respect to each individual from 
     whom such payments were received.
       ``(b) Form and Manner of Returns.--A return is described in 
     this subsection if such return--
       ``(1) is in such form as the Secretary may prescribe, and
       ``(2) contains--
       ``(A) the name, address, and TIN of the individual from 
     whom payments described in subsection (a) were received,
       ``(B) the name, address, and TIN of each individual who was 
     provided by such person with coverage under creditable health 
     insurance by reason of such payments and the period of such 
     coverage,
       ``(C) the aggregate amount of payments described in 
     subsection (a),
       ``(D) the qualified health insurance credit advance amount 
     (as defined in section 7527(e)) received by such person with 
     respect to the individual described in subparagraph (A), and
       ``(E) such other information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably prescribe.
       ``(c) Creditable Health Insurance.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `creditable health insurance' means 
     qualified health insurance (as defined in section 35(d)) 
     other than--
       ``(1) insurance under a subsidized group health plan 
     maintained by an employer, or
       ``(2) to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by 
     the Secretary, any other insurance covering an individual if 
     no credit is allowable under section 35 with respect to such 
     coverage.
       ``(d) Statements To Be Furnished to Individuals With 
     Respect to Whom Information Is Required.--Every person 
     required to make a return under subsection (a) shall furnish 
     to each individual whose name is required under subsection 
     (b)(2)(A) to be set forth in such return a written statement 
     showing--
       ``(1) the name and address of the person required to make 
     such return and the phone number of the information contact 
     for such person,
       ``(2) the aggregate amount of payments described in 
     subsection (a) received by the person required to make such 
     return from the individual to whom the statement is required 
     to be furnished,
       ``(3) the information required under subsection (b)(2)(B) 
     with respect to such payments, and
       ``(4) the qualified health insurance credit advance amount 
     (as defined in section 7527(e)) received by such person with 
     respect to the individual described in paragraph (2).
     The written statement required under the preceding sentence 
     shall be furnished on or before January 31 of the year 
     following the calendar year for which the return under 
     subsection (a) is required to be made.
       ``(e) Returns Which Would Be Required To Be Made by 2 or 
     More Persons.--Except to the extent provided in regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary, in the case of any amount 
     received by any person on behalf of another person, only the 
     person first receiving such amount shall be required to make 
     the return under subsection (a).''.
       (2) Assessable penalties.--
       (A) Subparagraph (B) of section 6724(d)(1) of such Code 
     (relating to definitions) is amended by redesignating clauses 
     (xi) through (xvii) as clauses (xii) through (xviii), 
     respectively, and by inserting after clause (x) the following 
     new clause:
       ``(xi) section 6050T (relating to returns relating to 
     payments for qualified health insurance),''.
       (B) Paragraph (2) of section 6724(d) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``or'' at the end of the next to last 
     subparagraph, by striking the period at the end of the last 
     subparagraph and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(BB) section 6050T(d) (relating to returns relating to 
     payments for qualified health insurance).''.
       (3) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     B of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6050S 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 6050T. Returns relating to payments for qualified health 
              insurance.''.

       (c) Criminal Penalty for Fraud.--Subchapter B of chapter 75 
     of such Code (relating to other offenses) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 7276. PENALTIES FOR OFFENSES RELATING TO HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE TAX CREDIT.

       ``Any person who knowingly misuses Department of the 
     Treasury names, symbols, titles, or initials to convey the 
     false impression of association with, or approval or 
     endorsement by, the Department of the Treasury of any 
     insurance products or group health coverage in connection 
     with the credit for health insurance costs under section 35 
     shall on conviction thereof be fined not more than $10,000, 
     or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 162(l) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Election to have subsection apply.--No deduction 
     shall be allowed under paragraph (1) for a taxable year 
     unless the taxpayer elects to have this subsection apply for 
     such year.''.
       (2) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting before the period ``, or 
     from section 35 of such Code''.
       (3) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking the last item and inserting the 
     following new items:

``Sec. 35. Health insurance costs.
``Sec. 36. Overpayments of tax.''.

       (4) The table of sections for subchapter B of chapter 75 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new item:

``Sec. 7276. Penalties for offenses relating to health insurance tax 
              credit.''.

       (e) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2000.
       (2) Penalties.--The amendments made by subsections (c) and 
     (d)(4) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 3. ADVANCE PAYMENT OF CREDIT TO ISSUERS OF QUALIFIED 
                   HEALTH INSURANCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 77 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to miscellaneous provisions) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 7527. ADVANCE PAYMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE CREDIT TO 
                   ISSUERS OF QUALIFIED HEALTH INSURANCE.

       ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an eligible individual, 
     the Secretary shall make payments to the health insurance 
     issuer of such individual's qualified health insurance equal 
     to such individual's qualified health insurance credit 
     advance amount with respect to such issuer.
       ``(b) Eligible Individual.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `eligible individual' means any individual--
       ``(1) who purchases qualified health insurance (as defined 
     in section 35(c)), and
       ``(2) for whom a qualified health insurance credit 
     eligibility certificate is in effect.
       ``(c) Health Insurance Issuer.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `health insurance issuer' has the meaning 
     given such term by section 9832(b)(2).
       ``(d) Qualified Health Insurance Credit Eligibility 
     Certificate.--For purposes of this section, a qualified 
     health insurance credit eligibility certificate is a 
     statement furnished by an individual to a qualified health 
     insurance issuer which--

[[Page S1904]]

       ``(1) certifies that the individual will be eligible to 
     receive the credit provided by section 35 for the taxable 
     year,
       ``(2) estimates the amount of such credit for such taxable 
     year, and
       ``(3) provides such other information as the Secretary may 
     require for purposes of this section.
       ``(e) Qualified Health Insurance Credit Advance Amount.--
     For purposes of this section, the term `qualified health 
     insurance credit advance amount' means, with respect to any 
     qualified health insurance issuer of qualified health 
     insurance, an estimate of the amount of credit allowable 
     under section 35 to the individual for the taxable year which 
     is attributable to the insurance provided to the individual 
     by such issuer.
       ``(f) Required Documentation for Receipt of Payments of 
     Advance Amount.--No payment of a qualified health insurance 
     credit advance amount with respect to any eligible individual 
     may be made under subsection (a) unless the health insurance 
     issuer provides to the Secretary--
       ``(1) the qualified health insurance credit eligibility 
     certificate of such individual, and
       ``(2) the return relating to such individual under section 
     6050T.
       ``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     77 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``Sec. 7527. Advance payment of health insurance credit for purchasers 
              of qualified health insurance.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2001.
 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues 
today and be part of the first bipartisan, bicameral group to address 
the growing number of individuals and families without health insurance 
coverage in this country.
  The problem has been made clear. America's uninsured population 
continues to rise. Despite the fact that we are enjoying strong 
economic times, the nation's uninsured population has grown to 44 
million over the past decade. We know that the majority of the 
uninsured--32 of the 44 million--earn an annual income of under 
$50,000. We also know that the rising cost of health insurance is the 
single most important reason for not purchasing health care coverage. 
Many Americans simply cannot afford to buy health insurance.
  The solutions are becoming clearer as well. A one-size fits all 
approach to expand health coverage and access to health care does not 
meet the various needs of the uninsured population. As a result, our 
proposal will take a multi-pronged approach that meets the needs of the 
uninsured and looks at innovative approaches to provide individuals 
greater ability to purchase coverage. We will seek to build upon the 
current employer-based system which continues to be the main source of 
health care coverage for most Americans.
  Our goal is to fill the coverage gaps that exist in the current 
system. A central piece of our proposal is to provide a refundable tax 
credit for low-income Americans who are not offered a contribution for 
their insurance through their employer and do not receive coverage 
through federal programs such as Medicaid or Medicare. The legislation 
introduced today will help hard working Americans who cannot afford to 
buy coverage on their own. For example, the part-time worker who is not 
offered employer-sponsored health insurance will be offered a $1,000 
tax credit to purchase health care coverage. The single mother with two 
children earning less than $50,000 a year, will be offered a $2,000 
credit to purchase health insurance.
  The legislation introduced today is the first of many steps that we 
will take to address the varying needs of the uninsured. Over the next 
several months, we will also explore a variety of options to assist 
individuals and their families in purchasing health coverage either 
through existing employer plans, the individual market, or through 
purchasing pools; seek ways to improve enrollment in existing federal 
programs, where approximately 5 million adults and 8 million children 
are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program (S-CHIP) yet are not enrolled; and finally, as the Chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Public Health, I will work closely with my 
colleagues to explore ways to expand and sustain our safety net system 
to improve access to critical primary care services to the uninsured 
and medically underserved populations.
  I especially wish to thank the American Academy of Family Physicians, 
the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, 
the Americans for Tax Reform, the BlueCross BlueShield Association, the 
Chamber of Commerce of the USA, the Citizens Against Government Waste, 
the Galen Institute, the Healthcare Leadership Council, the Health 
Insurance Association of America, the Hispanic Business Roundtable, the 
National Center for Policy Analysis, the National Federation of 
Independent Business, and the Small Business Survival Committee for 
their support of this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 2321. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
tax credit for development costs of telecommunications facilities in 
rural areas; to the Committee on Finance.


           rural telecommunications modernization act of 2000

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Rural Telecommunications Modernization Act. This Act would create a tax 
credit for companies that invest in providing broadband 
telecommunications services available in rural areas. The convergence 
of computing and communications has changed the way America interacts 
and does business. Individuals, businesses, schools, libraries, 
hospitals, and many others, reap the benefits of networked 
communications more and more each year. However, where in the past 
access to low bandwidth telephone facilities met our communications 
needs, today many people and organizations need the ability to transmit 
and receive large amounts of data quickly--as part of electronic 
commerce, distance learning, telemedicine, and even for mere access to 
many web sites.
  In some areas of the country companies are building networks that 
meet this broadband need as fast as they can. Technology companies are 
fighting to roll out broadband facilities as quickly as they can in 
urban and suburban areas. They are tearing up streets to instal fiber 
optics, converting cable TV facilities to broadband telecom 
applications, developing incredible new DSL technologies that convert 
regular copper telephone wires into broadband powerhouses.
  Other areas are not as fortunate. In rural areas access to broadband 
communications is harder to come by. In fact, there are only a few 
broadband providers outside big cities and suburban areas nationwide. 
This is because in many cases rural areas are more expensive to serve. 
Terrain is difficult. Populations are widely dispersed. Importantly, 
many of our broadband technologies cannot serve people who live more 
than eighteen thousand feet from a phone company's central office--
which is the case for most rural Americans.
  The implications for the country if we allow this broadband disparity 
to continue are alarming. Organizations in traditional robust 
communications and computing regions, often located in prosperous urban 
and suburban communities, will be able to reap the rewards of the so-
called ``New Economy.'' Organizations in other areas, often in rural 
areas, including many areas in my State of West Virginia, will suffer 
the consequences of being unable to take advantage of the astounding 
power of broadband networked computing.
  Just as companies that employ technological advances are decimating 
their less technologically savvy competitors, businesses in 
infrastructure-rich areas may soon decimate competitors in 
infrastructure-poor areas. This is just as true for rural students and 
workers trying to gain new skills who are competing against their non-
rural peers in the New Economy. The result of this digital divide could 
be disastrous for rural Americans: job loss, tax revenue loss, brain 
drain, and business failure concentrated in rural areas.
  Denying rural Americans a chance to participate in the New Economy is 
also bad for the national economy. Businesses will be forced to locate 
their operations and hire their employees in urban locations that have 
adequate broadband infrastructure, rather than in rural locations that 
are otherwise more efficient due to the location of

[[Page S1905]]

their customers or suppliers, a stable or better workforce, and cheaper 
production environments. Additionally, without adequate infrastructure, 
the businesses and individuals in these communications infrastructure 
poor areas are less likely to be integrated into the national 
electronic marketplace. Their absence would put a damper on the growth 
of the digital economy for everyone--not just for those in rural areas.
  Therefore, we must do everything we can to ensure that broadband 
communications are available to all areas of the country--rural as well 
as urban. The Rural Telecommunications Modernization Act addresses this 
problem.
  The Rural Telecommunications Modernization Act would give companies 
the incentive to build broadband facilities in rural areas by using a 
very focused tax credit. It would offer any company that invests in 
broadband facilities in rural areas a tax credit over the next three 
years. This tax credit will help fight the growing disparity in 
technology I just described.
  The credit is only available for certain investments. First, 
investments must be for ``broadband local access facilities.'' Second, 
investments must support ``high-speed broadband telecommunications 
services.'' And third, investments must serve only ``rural counties.''
  The Rural Telecommunications Modernization Act is part of the 
solution to the critically important digital divide problem. Rural 
Americans deserve the chance to participate in the New Economy. Without 
access to broadband services they will not have this chance. I hope 
that the Members of this body will support this important bill.
  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. 2321

       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 ``Rural Telecommunications 
     Modernization Act of 2000.

     SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT 
                   IN RURAL AREAS.

       (a) In General.--Section 46(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to amount of investment credit) is amended 
     by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2), by striking 
     the period at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting ``, 
     and'', and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) the rural telecommunications facilities credit.''
       (b) Amount of Credit.--Subpart E of part IV of subchapter A 
     of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
     to rules for computing investment credit) is amended by 
     inserting after section 47 the following:

     ``SEC. 47A. RURAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES CREDIT.

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 46, the rural 
     telecommunications facilities credit for any taxable year is 
     an amount equal to the applicable percentage of the qualified 
     broadband local access facilities expenditures for such 
     taxable year.
       ``(b) Applicable Percentage.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a), the applicable percentage in the case of qualified 
     broadband local access facilities expenditures in connection 
     with--
       ``(1) broadband telecommunications facilities, is 10 
     percent, and
       ``(2) enhanced broadband telecommunications facilities, is 
     15 percent.
       ``(c) Qualified broadband local access facilities 
     expenditure.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `qualified broadband local access facilities expenditure' 
     means any expenditure--
       ``(1) chargeable to capital account--
       ``(A) for property for which depreciation is allowable 
     under section 168, and
       ``(B) incurred in connection with broadband 
     telecommunications facilities or enhanced broadband 
     telecommunications facilities serving rural subscribers, and
       ``(2) incurred during the period--
       ``(A) beginning with the taxpayer's (or any predecessor's) 
     first taxable year beginning after the date of the enactment 
     of this section, and
       ``(B) ending with the taxpayer's (or any predecessor's) 
     third taxable year beginning after such date.
       ``(d) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) Broadband telecommunications facilities.--The term 
     `broadband telecommunications facilities' means broadband 
     local access facilities capable of--
       ``(A) transmitting voice, and
       ``(B) downloading data at a rate of 1.5 MBPS and uploading 
     data at a rate of .5 MBPS.
       ``(2) Enhanced broadband telecommunications facilities.--
     The term `enhanced broadband telecommunications facilities' 
     means the broadband local access facilities capable of--
       ``(A) transmitting voice, and
       ``(B) downloading and uploading data at a rate of 10 MBPS.
       ``(3) Determination of broadband local access facilities.--
     Broadband local access facilities--
       ``(A) begin at the switching point closest to the rural 
     subscriber, which is--
       ``(i) the subscriber side of the nearest switching facility 
     in the case of local exchange carriers,
       ``(ii) the subscriber side of the headend or the node in 
     the case of cable television operators, and
       ``(iii) the subscriber side of the transmission and 
     reception facilities in the case of a wireless or satellite 
     carrier,
       ``(B) end at the interface between the network and the 
     rural subscriber's location, and
       ``(C) do not include any switching facility.
       ``(4) Rural subscriber.--The term `rural subscriber' means 
     a subscriber who lives in area which--
       ``(A) is not within 10 miles of any incorporated or census 
     designated places containing more than 25,000 people, and
       ``(B) is not within a county or county equivalent which has 
     an overall population density of more than 500 people per 
     square mile of land.''
       (c) Special Rule for Mutual or Cooperative Telephone 
     Companies.--Section 501(c)(12)(B) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to list of exempt organizations) is 
     amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii), by 
     striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and inserting 
     ``, or'', and by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(v) which is not described in subparagraph (A), in an 
     amount which does not exceed in any year an amount equal to 
     the applicable percentage of the qualified broadband local 
     access facilities expenditures (as determined in section 47A) 
     of the mutual or cooperative telephone company for such 
     year.''
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subpart E of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 47 the following:

``Sec. 47A. Rural telecommunications facilities credit.''

       (e) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to expenditures 
     incurred after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Special rule.--The amendments made by subsection (c) 
     shall apply to amounts received after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 2322. A bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to establish a 
special subsistence allowance for certain members of the uniformed 
services who are eligible to receive food stamp assistance, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.


           remove servicemembers from food stamps act of 2000

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
remove thousands of our servicemembers from the food stamp rolls.
  The Remove Servicemembers from Food Stamps Act of 2000 provides 
junior enlisted servicemembers who are eligible for food stamps in the 
pay grade E-1 through E-5 an additional allowance of $180 a month. A 
not-yet-published Department of Defense report estimates that 6,300 
servicemembers receive food stamps, while the General Accounting Office 
and Congressional Research Service place this number at around 13,500. 
Regardless of this disparity, the fact that just one servicemember is 
on food stamps is a national disgrace. This bill will end the ``food 
stamp Army'' once and for all.
  This legislative proposal is estimated to cost only $6 million 
annually. Interestingly, the Congressional Budget Office determined 
that it would represent an overall savings to taxpayers since it would 
save the Department of Agriculture more than $6 million by removing 
servicemembers from the food stamp rolls for good.
  Last year, this legislation was included in S. 4, the Soldiers', 
Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Relief Act of 1999. Although the 
Senate approved this legislation as part of S. 4, I was greatly 
disappointed when food stamp relief was rejected by conferees from the 
House of Representatives despite the strong support of Admiral Jay 
Johnson, the Chief of Naval Operations, and General Jim Jones, the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps. With over 13,500 military families on 
food stamps, and possibly thousands more eligible for the program, I 
cannot understand the Congress' refusal to rectify this problem in last 
year's National Defense Authorization Act.
  It is outrageous that Admirals and Generals received a 17 percent pay

[[Page S1906]]

raise last year while our enlisted families continue to line up for 
free food and furniture. Last year, we poured hundreds of millions of 
dollars into programs the military did not request, like the C-130J. We 
spent $375 million as a down payment on a $1.5 billion amphibious 
assault ship that the Navy did not want and that the Secretary of 
Defense said diverts dollars from higher priority programs. We added 
$5.1 million to build a gymnasium at the Naval Post-Graduate School and 
$15 million to build a Reserve Center in Oregon--neither was in the 
President's budget request or identified by the Joint Chiefs as a 
priority item.
  It is difficult to reconcile how Congress could waste $7.4 billion on 
pork barrel spending in the defense budget, while we ignore the basic 
needs of our military families. I have been open to all suggestions for 
solutions to this problem and am willing to work toward a bipartisan 
plan that would satisfy the administration, Congress, and the 
Department of Defense. Sadly, politics, not military necessity, remains 
the rule, not the exception.
  It is unconscionable that the men and women who are willing to 
sacrifice their lives for their country have to rely on food stamps to 
make ends meet, and it is an abrogation of our responsibilities as 
Senators to let this reality go on without some sort of legislative 
remedy.
  I will not stand by and watch as our military is permitted to erode 
to the breaking point due to the President's lack of foresight and the 
Congress' lack of compassion. These military men and women on food 
stamps--our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines--are the very same 
Americans that the President and Congress have sent into harm's way in 
recent years in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, and East Timor. They 
deserve our continuing respect, our unwavering support, and a living 
wage.
  The legislation is supported by every enlisted association or 
organization that specifically supports enlisted servicemember issues 
in the Military Coalition and in the National Military/Veterans 
Alliance. Associations include the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Non-
Commissioned Officers Association, the American Legion, the Retired 
Enlisted Association, the National Association for Uniformed Services, 
the Fleet Reserve Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the 
U.S. Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association, the Disabled 
American Veterans, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of 
the U.S., and the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to act swiftly. It is a 
step in the right direction toward improving the lives of our 
servicemembers and their families who are struggling to feed their 
families. There is no reason not to pass this bill immediately. We have 
waited too long already. We must end the days of a ``food stamp Army'' 
once and for all. Our military personnel and their families deserve 
better.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2322

       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 ``Remove Servicemembers from 
     Food Stamps Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. SPECIAL SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE FOR MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO 
                   RECEIVE FOOD STAMP ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Allowance.--(1) Chapter 7 of title 37, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 402 the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 402a. Special subsistence allowance

       ``(a) Entitlement.--Upon the application of an eligible 
     member of a uniformed service described in subsection (b), 
     the Secretary concerned shall pay the member a special 
     subsistence allowance for each month for which the member is 
     eligible to receive food stamp assistance.
       ``(b) Covered Members.--An enlisted member referred to in 
     subsection (a) is an enlisted member in pay grade E-5 or 
     below.
       ``(c) Termination of Entitlement.--The entitlement of a 
     member to receive payment of a special subsistence allowance 
     terminates upon the occurrence of any of the following 
     events:
       ``(1) Termination of eligibility for food stamp assistance.
       ``(2) Payment of the special subsistence allowance for 12 
     consecutive months.
       ``(3) Promotion of the member to a higher grade.
       ``(4) Transfer of the member in a permanent change of 
     station.
       ``(d) Reestablished Entitlement.--(1) After a termination 
     of a member's entitlement to the special subsistence 
     allowance under subsection (c), the Secretary concerned shall 
     resume payment of the special subsistence allowance to the 
     member if the Secretary determines, upon further application 
     of the member, that the member is eligible to receive food 
     stamps.
       ``(2) Payments resumed under this subsection shall 
     terminate under subsection (c) upon the occurrence of an 
     event described in that subsection after the resumption of 
     the payments.
       ``(3) The number of times that payments are resumed under 
     this subsection is unlimited.
       ``(e) Documentation of Eligibility.--A member of the 
     uniformed services applying for the special subsistence 
     allowance under this section shall furnish the Secretary 
     concerned with such evidence of the member's eligibility for 
     food stamp assistance as the Secretary may require in 
     connection with the application.
       ``(f) Amount of Allowance.--The monthly amount of the 
     special subsistence allowance under this section is $180.
       ``(g) Relationship to Basic Allowance for Subsistence.--The 
     special subsistence allowance under this section is in 
     addition to the basic allowance for subsistence under section 
     402 of this title.
       ``(h) Food Stamp Assistance Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `food stamp assistance' means assistance under the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
       ``(i) Termination of Authority.--No special subsistence 
     allowance may be made under this section for any month 
     beginning after September 30, 2005.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     402 the following:

``402a. Special subsistence allowance.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--Section 402a of title 37, United 
     States Code, shall take effect on the first day of the first 
     month that begins on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Annual Report.--(1) Not later than March 1 of each year 
     after 2000, the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the number of 
     members of the uniformed services who are eligible for 
     assistance under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et 
     seq.).
       (2) In preparing the report, the Comptroller General shall 
     consult with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of 
     Transportation (with respect to the Coast Guard), the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services (with respect to the 
     commissioned corps of the Public Health Service), and the 
     Secretary of Commerce (with respect to the commissioned 
     officers of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration), who shall provide the Comptroller General 
     with any information that the Comptroller General determines 
     necessary to prepare the report.
       (3) No report is required under this subsection after March 
     1, 2005.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Enzi, 
        Mr. Abraham, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Robb, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mr. Gorton, Mr. Hutchinson Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
        Reed, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Lugar):
  S. 2323. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
clarify the treatment of stock options under the act; read the first 
time.


                    worker economic opportunity act

 Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Worker Economic Opportunity Act. Senator Dodd and I have worked closely 
with Senators Jeffords and Enzi, as well as Senators Abraham, Bennett, 
Lieberman, and others to develop this important bill. This important 
bipartisan bill will ensure that American workers can receive lucrative 
stock options from their employers--once considered the exclusive perk 
of corporate executives.
  In recent years our country's innovative new workplaces and creative 
employers have offered new financial opportunities--such as stock 
options--for hourly employees. The Department of Labor recently issued 
an interpretation of the decades-old labor and employment laws that 
could keep normal employees from reaping the benefits of these perks. 
When I realized this, I decided we needed to fix this problem--it would 
have been a travesty for us to let old laws steal this chance for the 
average employee to share in his or her company's economic growth.
  This law simply says: it makes no difference if you work in the 
corporate boardroom or on the factory floor--everyone should be able to 
share in the success of the company.

[[Page S1907]]

  Our bill changes the outdated laws so they don't stand in the way of 
economic opportunity for American workers. In sum, the bill would amend 
the Fair Labor Standards Act to ensure that employer-provided stock 
option programs are allowed just like employee bonuses already are. 
Also, this legislation includes a broad ``safe harbor'' that specifies 
that employers have no liability because of any stock options or 
similar programs that they have given to employees in the past. The 
bill I am introducing today is what I hope will be the first of many 
common-sense efforts to drag old labor and employment laws into the new 
millennium.
  I am very pleased that Secretary Herman and the Department of Labor 
have worked with us on this legislation. The Worker Economic 
Opportunity Act is also supported by a broad range of high tech and 
business groups who have joined together to form the Coalition to 
Promote Employee Stock Ownership. This group has been of great 
assistance throughout the development of this bill.
  An identical companion bill to the Worker Economic Opportunity Act is 
being introduced in the House today. As a result, I am optimistic that 
we can work to ensure that this much-needed fix to the FLSA becomes law 
in the near future.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague Senator 
McConnell in introducing the Worker Economic Opportunity Act. This 
common sense bill will allow companies to continue to offer stock 
option programs to their hourly employees without violating the Fair 
Labor Standards Act with respect to overtime. We are joined today by 
Senators Jeffords, Enzi, Robb, Murray, Lieberman, Bingaman, Reed, 
Kerry, Abraham, Bennett, Gorton, Hutchinson, and Warner.
  Sotck options, stock appreciation rights, and employee stock purchase 
programs are tools used by some companies to give employees a stake in 
a company's success and to retain employees in a tight labor market. 
These programs are used by well-known companies such as Xerox, GTE, and 
PepsiCo. as well as hi-tech startups. In more and more situations, non-
exempt and exempt employees are able to participate. For example, it 
has been GTE's practice to give stock options to all 110,000 employees, 
of which 53,000 are non-exempt. Xerox corporation employs approximately 
52,000 employees in the United States, and offers stock options to all 
employees who have completed one year of service. It employs 93,000 
people worldwide and 57 percent of them are non-exempt.
  Clearly, the trend in our economy is that more and more companies are 
providing this type of compensation package. Not surprisingly, then, my 
office was beset with letters and phone calls recently concerning a 
1999 Department of Labor advisory letter regarding one company's 
proposed stock option plan for non-exempt employees. The opinion 
letter, which does not carry the weight of law, states that the value 
of the options would have to be included in the non-exempt workers base 
wages when calculating their overtime rates. The Fair Labor Standards 
Act (FLSA) exempts some employee benefits from overtime calculations 
including health insurance, thrift savings plans, and discretionary 
bonuses. When providing its opinion letter, the Department of Labor 
determined that stock option plans did not fall within any of the 
current exemptions. While the Department did point out that their 
opinion was based on only one company's proposed plan, it became clear 
that legislation was needed to exempt these programs, lest businesses 
begin to exclude non-exempt employees from receiving stock options. I 
commend the Department for calling for a legislative fix and working 
closely with us to craft this bipartisan bill.
  Our legislation would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to exclude 
from the regular rate stock options, stock appreciation rights or 
bonafide stock purchase programs that meet certain vesting, disclosure, 
and determination requirements. A safe harbor would be in effect to 
protect companies that have already established stock option programs 
for non-exempt workers, including those programs provided under a 
collective bargaining agreement or requiring shareholder approval.
  Just several years ago, stock option plans were only offered 
corporate CEO's and other very senior executives. Today's flexible 
benefit packages give that same opportunity throughout the corporate 
structure. I don't believe that non-exempt employees who form the 
backbone of most businesses should be excluded from this opportunity. 
They deserve the right to share in the prosperity of the new economy.
  Clearly, stock option programs have risk attached, so we wanted to be 
very clear that our legislation requires that the terms and conditions 
of any program are communicated to employees and that the exercise of 
any grants is voluntary. Employees need to make informed choices.
  I am pleased that this has been a bipartisan effort, and also one 
where we have worked very constructively with the Administration. I 
hope we can move it quickly for the benefit of all working families.
 Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am delighted to be here today 
to introduce the Worker Economic Opportunity Act. Having worked with 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle and the Department of Labor, I 
am extremely proud of this collaborative effort which has resulted in 
this legislation which will encourage employers to provide equity 
ownership opportunities to their hourly employees.
  In the last 10 years, we have witnessed tremendous change in the 
structure of our Nation's economy in large part due to the birth of the 
internet and e-commerce. The vitality of our economy is a tribute to 
the creative and entrepreneurial genius of thousands of individual 
business people and the indispensable contribution of the American 
workforce.
  As legislators during this exciting time, we are challenged to 
maintain an environment that will foster the continued growth of our 
economy. We must work to ensure that our laws are in sync with the 
changing environment. However, many of the laws and policies governing 
our workplace have fallen out of sync with the information age and 
there has been particular resistance to changing our labor laws. As 
Chairman of the Senate Committee with jurisdiction over workplace 
issues, I believe it is time to examine and modify these laws to meet 
the rapidly involving needs of the American workforce.
  The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for example, was enacted in the 
late 1930s, to establish basic standards for wages and overtime pay. 
While the principles behind the FLSA have not changed, its rigid 
provisions make it difficult for employers to accommodate the needs of 
today's workforce. Most recently, we discovered that the FLSA actually 
operates to deter employers from offering stock option programs to 
hourly employees.
  While stock option programs are most prevalent in the high tech 
industry, increasingly employers across the whole spectrum of American 
industry have begun to offer stock option programs to all of their 
employees. Broad-based stock option programs prove valuable to both 
employers and employees. For employers, stock options programs have 
become a key tool for employee recruitment, motivation and retention. 
Employees seek out companies offering these programs because they 
enable workers to become owners and reap the benefits of their 
company's growth.
  When I heard about the FLSA's application to stock options, I became 
very concerned about its impact on our workforce. I was pleased to 
discover that Senators' McConnell, Dodd, and Enzi shared similar 
concerns and that the Department of Labor also recognized that we had a 
problem on our hands that would require a legislative solution. 
Together we have crafted the Worker Economic Opportunity Act which will 
create a new exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act for stock 
options, stock appreciation rights and employee stock purchase 
plans.
 Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be part of the 
introduction today of the Worker Economic Opportunity Act, a bipartisan 
bill to exclude stock options and stock option profits from overtime 
pay calculations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. I want to 
acknowledge and commend my colleagues Senators McConnell, Dodd, and 
Jeffords for their hard work on this issue.

[[Page S1908]]

  Earlier this year, the Department of Labor advised employers that 
they would be required to include stock options in overtime 
calculations. The advisory also prescribed an extremely complicated 
method of calculation that created a virtual administrative 
impossibility for employers. We received overwhelmingly negative 
feedback that this advisory would result in the end of stock options 
for hourly employees and create a lose-lose situation for employees and 
employers alike. The legislation we introduce today ensures that 
companies can continue to give stock options to hourly employees so 
that these employees--and not just executives--can share in this 
country's economic boom. And employers will be able to continue to use 
stock options as a valuable tool for recruiting and retaining employees 
in a competitive labor market.
  This bipartisan legislation also represents an important first step 
towards reforming outdated labor statutes that no longer meet the needs 
of today's workforce. Most of the major labor statutes were drafted 
between 30 and 60 years ago and many of their heavy-handed restrictions 
are now more harmful than helpful to employees in the modern workplace. 
We need to think about how to encourage--not discourage--employers' 
development of new and creative measures to benefit employees, such as 
stock option programs and telecommuting arrangements. Our legislation 
will provide just such encouragement and ensure that stock option 
programs do not fall prey to obsolete legislative prohibitions.
  Finally, I am particularly proud that both Democrats and the 
Department of Labor have worked with us on this bill. As chairman of 
the Employment, Safety and Training Subcommittee, I firmly believe that 
cooperation between lawmakers and agencies is the best way to develop 
practical solutions that benefit both employees and businesses. I 
sincerely hope that we can continue to work together on similar 
measures in the future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 2324. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, 
to require ballistics testing of all firearms manufactured and all 
firearms in custody of Federal agencies, and to add ballistics testing 
to existing firearms enforcement strategies; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


           BALLISTICS, LAW ASSISTANCE, SAFETY TECHNOLOGY ACT

 Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague 
Senator Feinstein to introduce ``BLAST''--the Ballistics, Law 
Assistance, and Safety Technology Act. The bill offers two 
complementary approaches to combating gun violence. The first supplies 
our Nation's police with a new technology to assist them in solving 
crimes. The second expands ``Project Exile'' to 50 cities, giving 
federal prosecutors the resources they need to put more felons behind 
bars. Let me explain how our measure is crucial to the fight against 
crime.
  Reducing crime requires a multifaceted approach. While we need 
tougher controls to keep guns away from kids in this country--including 
mandating that child safety locks be sold with every new handgun--all 
of us also recognize that the battle against senseless violence 
includes prosecuting all criminals to the letter of the law.
  Mr. President, just as every person has a unique fingerprint, each 
gun leaves unique markings on discharged bullets and shell casings. 
Over the past decade, new technology has allowed for the comparison of 
those ``gun prints'' with bullets found at crime scenes. By keeping a 
computerized image of each new gun's fingerprint, police can compare 
the microscopic differences in markings left by each gun until they 
find a match. Once a match is found, law enforcement can begin tracing 
that weapon from its original sale to the person who used it to commit 
the crime.
  Indeed, ballistics technology, though nascent, is already helping to 
solve crimes. For example, in June 1997, an Oakland man was shot and 
killed as he used a public telephone on a street corner. Without any 
leads or physical evidence other than a bullet casing left by the 
discharged weapon, police were initially stymied in their search for 
the killer.
  A year passed without any progress in the investigation until police 
made an ordinary arrest of two men for the unlawful possession of a 
firearm. When the officers test-fired the confiscated gun and ran the 
image through their ballistics database, they found a match within 
seconds. The seized gun was the same gun that fired the deadly bullet 
in the unsolved case the previous year. Police confronted the two men 
with this evidence, and quickly received a confession to the murder.
  In another case, police only found 9 millimeter cartridge casings at 
the scene of a brutal homicide in Milwaukee--there were no other clues. 
But four months later, when a teenage male was arrested on an unrelated 
charge, he was found to be in possession of that firearm. Ballistics 
linked the two cases. Prosecutors successfully prosecuted three adult 
suspects for the homicide and convicted the teen in juvenile court.
  Mr. President, since the early 1990's, more than 250 crime labs and 
law enforcement agencies in over 40 states have been operating 
independent ballistics systems maintained by either the ATF or the FBI. 
Together, ATF's Integrated Ballistics Identification System (``IBIS'') 
and the FBI's DRUGFIRE system have been responsible for linking 5,700 
guns to two or more crimes where corroborating evidence was otherwise 
lacking.
  My own state of Wisconsin employs the DRUGFIRE system for ballistics 
testing and has already used it to solve crime and provide 
authenticating evidence for ongoing criminal investigations. In 1998, 
the Milwaukee police department alone analyzed almost 600 firearms and 
over 3200 fired cartridges. Even though Wisconsin's DRUGFIRE has a 
limited number of guns in its database, ballistics testing helped solve 
seven homicides, 100 cases where the reckless use of a weapon 
endangered public safety, and numerous other gun crimes.
  These statistics are heartening, but they also illustrate the 
untapped potential of ballistics as a law enforcement weapon. Simply 
put, ballistics testing is only as good as the number of images in the 
database. Unfortunately, not enough guns are test fired before they are 
sold, not enough communities have access to ballistics databases, and 
not enough information is shared between law enforcement agencies of 
different jurisdictions. Ironically, even the two primary agencies 
responsible for investigating gun crimes--the ATF and the FBI--have 
created ballistics systems that cannot read each others data. Sadly, 
this significant law enforcement tool is severely underutilized.
  But that need not be the case. Title I of BLAST makes ballistics a 
centerpiece of our anti-crime strategy by requiring federal firearms 
manufacturers and importers to test fire all new firearms and make the 
ballistics images available to federal law enforcement; requiring 
federal law enforcement officials to test fire all firearms in their 
custody; and providing financial support to communities that include 
ballistics testing as a critical part of their comprehensive anti-crime 
strategy, building on the model used by ATF in the Youth Crime Gun 
Interdiction Initiative.

  The burden on manufacturers is minimal--we authorize funds to 
underwrite the cost of testing--and the assistance to law enforcement 
is considerable. And don't take my word for it, ask the gun 
manufacturers and the police. Listen to what Paul Januzzo, the vice-
president of the gun manufacturer Glock, said last month in reference 
to ballistics testing, ``our mantra has been that the issue is crime 
control, not gun control . . . it would be two-faced of us not to want 
this.'' In their agreement with HUD, Smith & Wesson agreed to perform 
ballistics testing on all new handguns. And Ben Wilson, the chief of 
the firearms section at ATF, emphasized the importance of ballistics 
testing as a investigative device, ``This [ballistics] allows you 
literally to find a needle in a haystack.''
  Our approach is bipartisan as well. The Republican governor of New 
York, George Pataki, prominently included a similar ballistics measure 
in his recently introduced anti-crime package. He clearly recognizes, 
as we do, that the more we can empower law enforcement, the more 
effectively we can put hard core criminals where they belong--behind 
bars.

[[Page S1909]]

  To be sure, we are sensitive to the notion that law abiding hunters 
and sportsmen need to be protected from any misuse of the ballistics 
database by government. The BLAST bill explicitly prohibits ballistics 
information from being used for any purpose unless it is necessary for 
the investigation of a gun crime.
  Of course, to successfully combat crime, you also need to enhance the 
arsenal of law enforcement. That is why Title II of BLAST expands the 
successful ``Project Exile'' program. By authorizing $20 million over 
four years, BLAST would fund gun prosecutors in 50 cities--prosecutors, 
who will work in conjunction with state and local authorities, devoted 
solely to the aggressive enforcement of the federal gun laws.
  This program already enjoys widespread support--from the industry to 
leaders on both sides of the political aisle to the National Rifle 
Association, which has pointed to Project Exile as a model for fighting 
gun crime. Our hope is to expand the success of EXILE across the 
country and provide the resources to every city interested in 
aggressively pursuing gun crimes. Felons will know that if they commit 
a crime with a gun they will pay the price.
  Mr. President, the BLAST bill will enhance a revolutionary new 
technology that helps solve crime while, at the same time, recognizing 
that new crime solving instruments are worthless unless prosecutors are 
in place to punish violent offenders to the fullest extent of the law. 
BLAST is a worthwhile piece of crime control legislation. I hope that 
the Senate will quickly move to pass it.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2324

       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 ``Ballistics, Law Assistance, 
     and Safety Technology Act'' (``BLAST'').

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to increase public safety by assisting law enforcement 
     in solving more gun-related crimes and offering prosecutors 
     evidence to link felons to gun crimes through ballistics 
     technology;
       (2) to provide for ballistics testing of all new firearms 
     for sale to assist in the identification of firearms used in 
     crimes;
       (3) to require ballistics testing of all firearms in 
     custody of Federal agencies to assist in the identification 
     of firearms used in crimes;
       (4) to add ballistics testing to existing firearms 
     enforcement programs; and
       (5) to provide for targeted enforcement of Federal firearms 
     laws.

                             TITLE I--BLAST

     SEC. 101. DEFINITION OF BALLISTICS.

       Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(35) Ballistics.--The term `ballistics' means a 
     comparative analysis of fired bullets and cartridge casings 
     to identify the firearm from which bullets were discharged, 
     through identification of the unique characteristics that 
     each firearm imprints on bullets and cartridge casings.''.

      SEC. 102. TEST FIRING AND AUTOMATED STORAGE OF BALLISTICS 
                   RECORDS.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 923 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(m)(1) In addition to the other licensing requirements 
     under this section, a licensed manufacturer or licensed 
     importer shall--
       ``(A) test fire firearms manufactured or imported by such 
     licensees as specified by the Secretary by regulation;
       ``(B) prepare ballistics images of the fired bullet and 
     cartridge casings from the test fire;
       ``(C) make the records available to the Secretary for entry 
     in a computerized database; and
       ``(D) store the fired bullet and cartridge casings in such 
     a manner and for such a period as specified by the Secretary 
     by regulation.
       ``(2) Nothing in this subsection creates a cause of action 
     against any Federal firearms licensee or any other person for 
     any civil liability except for imposition of a civil penalty 
     under this section.
       ``(3)(A) The Attorney General and the Secretary shall 
     assist firearm manufacturers and importers in complying with 
     paragraph (1) through--
       ``(i) the acquisition, disposition, and upgrades of 
     ballistics equipment and bullet recovery equipment to be 
     placed at or near the sites of licensed manufacturers and 
     importers;
       ``(ii) the hiring or designation of personnel necessary to 
     develop and maintain a database of ballistics images of fired 
     bullets and cartridge casings, research and evaluation;
       ``(iii) providing education about the role of ballistics as 
     part of a comprehensive firearm crime reduction strategy;
       ``(iv) providing for the coordination among Federal, State, 
     and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies and the 
     firearm industry to curb firearm-related crime and illegal 
     firearm trafficking; and
       ``(v) any other steps necessary to make ballistics testing 
     effective.
       ``(B) The Attorney General and the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) establish a computer system through which State and 
     local law enforcement agencies can promptly access ballistics 
     records stored under this subsection, as soon as such a 
     capability is available; and
       ``(ii) encourage training for all ballistics examiners.
       ``(4) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection and annually thereafter, the Attorney General 
     and the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of 
     the House of Representatives a report regarding the impact of 
     this section, including--
       ``(A) the number of Federal and State criminal 
     investigations, arrests, indictments, and prosecutions of all 
     cases in which access to ballistics records provided under 
     this section served as a valuable investigative tool;
       ``(B) the extent to which ballistics records are accessible 
     across jurisdictions; and
       ``(C) a statistical evaluation of the test programs 
     conducted pursuant to section 6 of the Ballistics, Law 
     Assistance, and State Technology Act.
       ``(5) There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury for 
     each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004, $20,000,000 to carry 
     out this subsection, including--
       ``(A) installation of ballistics equipment and bullet 
     recovery equipment;
       ``(B) establishment of sites for ballistics testing;
       ``(C) salaries and expenses of necessary personnel; and
       ``(D) research and evaluation.
       ``(6) The Secretary and the Attorney General shall conduct 
     mandatory ballistics testing of all firearms obtained or in 
     the possession of their respective agencies.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendment made by subsection (a) take effect on the date on 
     which the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     in consultation with the Board of the National Integrated 
     Ballistics Information Network, certify that the ballistics 
     systems used by the Department of Justice and the Department 
     of the Treasury are sufficiently interoperable to make 
     mandatory ballistics testing of new firearms possible.
       (2) Effective on date of enactment.--Section 923(m)(6) of 
     title 18, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 103. PRIVACY RIGHTS OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

       Ballistics information of individual guns in any form or 
     database established by this Act may not be used for 
     prosecutorial purposes unless law enforcement officials have 
     a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that 
     ballistics information would assist in the investigation of 
     that crime.

     SEC. 104. DEMONSTRATION FIREARM CRIME REDUCTION STRATEGY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury and the 
     Attorney General shall establish in the jurisdictions 
     selected under subsection (c), a comprehensive firearm crime 
     reduction strategy that meets the requirements of subsection 
     (b).
       (b) Program Elements.--Each program established under 
     subsection (a) shall, for the jurisdiction concerned--
       (1) provide for ballistics testing, in accordance with 
     criteria set forth by the National Integrated Ballistics 
     Information Network, of all firearms recovered during 
     criminal investigations, in order to--
       (A) identify the types and origins of the firearms;
       (B) identify suspects; and
       (C) link multiple crimes involving the same firearm;
       (2) require that all identifying information relating to 
     firearms recovered during criminal investigations be promptly 
     submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury, in order to 
     identify the types and origins of the firearms and to 
     identify illegal firearms traffickers;
       (3) provide for coordination among Federal, State, and 
     local law enforcement officials, firearm examiners, 
     technicians, laboratory personnel, investigators, and 
     prosecutors in the tracing and ballistics testing of firearms 
     and the investigation and prosecution of firearms-related 
     crimes including illegal firearms trafficking; and
       (4) require analysis of firearm tracing and ballistics data 
     in order to establish trends in firearm-related crime and 
     firearm trafficking.
       (c) Participating Jurisdictions.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury and the 
     Attorney General shall select not fewer than 10 jurisdictions 
     for participation in the program under this section.
       (2) Considerations.--In selecting jurisdictions under this 
     subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney 
     General shall give priority to jurisdictions that--

[[Page S1910]]

       (A) participate in comprehensive firearm law enforcement 
     strategies, including programs such as the Youth Crime Gun 
     Interdiction Initiative (known as ``YCGII''), Project 
     Achilles, Project Disarm, Project Triggerlock, Project Exile, 
     and Project Surefire, and Operation Ceasefire;
       (B) draft a plan to share ballistics records with nearby 
     jurisdictions that require ballistics testing of firearms 
     recovered during criminal investigations; and
       (C) pledge to match Federal funds for the expansion of 
     ballistics testing on a one-on-one basis.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2001 through 
     2004, $20,000,000 to carry out this section, including--
       (1) installation of ballistics equipment; and
       (2) salaries and expenses for personnel (including 
     personnel from the Department of Justice and the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms).

                            TITLE II--EXILE

     SEC. 201. TARGETED ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS.

       (a) Designation.--The Attorney General and the Secretary of 
     the Treasury, after consultation with appropriate State and 
     local officials, shall designate not less than 50 local 
     jurisdictions in which to enforce aggressively Federal laws 
     designed to prevent the possession by criminals of firearms 
     (as defined in section 921(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code).
       (b) Assistance.--In order to provide assistance for the 
     enforcement of Federal laws designed to prevent the 
     possession by criminals of firearms, the Attorney General and 
     the Secretary of the Treasury may--
       (1) direct the detailing of Federal personnel, including 
     Assistant United States Attorneys and agents and 
     investigators of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
     Firearms, to designated jurisdictions, subject to the 
     approval of the head of that department or agency that 
     employs such personnel;
       (2) coordinate activities with State and local officials, 
     including facilitation of training of State and local law 
     enforcement officers and prosecutors in designated 
     jurisdictions to work with Federal prosecutors, agents, and 
     investigators to identify appropriate cases for enforcement 
     of Federal laws designed to prevent the possession by 
     criminals of firearms;
       (3) help coordinate, in conjunction with local officials, 
     local businesses, and community leaders, public outreach in 
     designated jurisdictions regarding penalties associated with 
     violation of Federal laws designed to prevent the possession 
     by criminals of firearms.
       (c) Criteria for Designation.--In designating local 
     jurisdictions under this section, the Attorney General and 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall consider--
       (1) the extent to which there is a high rate of recidivism 
     among armed felons in the jurisdiction;
       (2) the extent to which there is a high rate of violent 
     crime in the jurisdiction;
       (3) the extent to which State and local law enforcement 
     agencies have committed resources to respond to the illegal 
     possession of firearms in the jurisdiction, as an indication 
     of their determination to respond aggressively to the 
     problem;
       (4) the extent to which a significant increase in the 
     allocation of Federal resources is necessary to respond 
     adequately to the illegal possession of firearms in the 
     jurisdiction; and
       (5) any other criteria as the Attorney General and 
     Secretary of the Treasury consider to be appropriate.
       (d) Priority.--In addition to the criteria set forth in 
     subsection (c), in considering which local jurisdictions to 
     designate under this section, the Attorney General and the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall give priority to 
     jurisdictions that have--
       (1) demonstrated a commitment to enforcement of Federal 
     firearms laws through participation in initiatives like the 
     Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, Project Disarm, and 
     Operation Ceasefire;
       (2) identified a large number of convicted felons involved 
     in firearms trafficking to individuals under age 25; and
       (3) agreed to require that all identifying information 
     relating to firearms recovered during criminal investigations 
     be promptly submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     identify the types and origins of such firearms and to 
     identify illegal firearms traffickers.
       (e) Reports and Evaluation.--
       (1) Annual report.--The Attorney General and the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall annually submit to the Chairmen and 
     Ranking Members of the Committees on the Judiciary of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate a report, which shall 
     include information relating to--
       (A) the number of arrests by Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement officials involving illegal possession of 
     firearms by criminals in each designated city;
       (B) the number of individuals prosecuted for illegal 
     firearms possession by criminals in Federal, State, and local 
     court in each designated city, the number of convictions, and 
     a breakdown of sentences imposed; and
       (C) a description of the public outreach initiatives being 
     implemented in designated jurisdictions.
       (2) Evaluation.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General and the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall submit to the Chairmen and Ranking 
     Members of the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a report concerning the 
     effectiveness of the designation of jurisdictions under this 
     section, including an analysis of whether crime within the 
     jurisdiction has been reduced or displaced to nearby 
     jurisdictions, along with any recommendations for related 
     legislation.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI:
  S. 2325. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure 
equity in the provision of transportation by limousine services; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


       contracted automobile regulatory relief act of 2000 (carr)

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will eliminate burdensome and unnecessary regulations which are 
devastating the nation's limousine companies, 80 percent of which are 
small business owners.
  Federal Highway Administration regulations grant limo operators the 
right to cross states lines ``without interference''. Yet local 
entities across the U.S. have taken it upon themselves to establish 
unnecessary bureaucracies for the purpose of placing excessive and 
arbitrary requirements upon limo operators that enter their 
jurisdictions.
  Current law already requires limo operators to be certified and 
registered at three different stages: the U.S. Department of 
Transportation; the state in which they principally operate; and the 
locality in which the business is located. Therefore, company owners, 
drivers, and vehicles must already comply with a myriad of safety and 
financial requirements that includes carrying at least $1.5 million in 
liability insurance. Public safety is clearly being upheld.
  Yet, after satisfying these three stages of compliance, limo 
operators often find that there is a fourth, fifth, sixth and sometimes 
even more bureaucratic hoops to jump through to simply conduct their 
business. This happens when a locality sets up a Local Taxi and 
Limousine Commission to place certification requirements not only on 
companies located in their jurisdiction, but on any other limo that 
enters their locality to pick up or drop off a customer. These 
additional licenses can cost up to several hundred dollars annually--
and that's just to enter one jurisdiction.
  The purpose of the CARR ACT is simple. It says that if a limo 
operator has satisfied federal, state, and local requirements, no other 
state or entity has the authority to establish additional requirements. 
The bill will not lower the quality of service which the public expects 
from the limousine industry nor does it compromise public safety. In 
fact, my legislation does not affect any safety regulations or 
financial requirements on interstate operations required by the U.S. 
DOT nor does it affect the power of states to regulate safety or 
financial responsibility as they may do under current law.
  The same protections were granted to the trucking industry in 1995, 
to the armor car industry in 1997, and to the chartered bus industry 
under TEA-21. The time for these protections to be extended to the 
limousine industry is long overdue. No small business should be faced 
with the unfair and excessive bureaucracy faced by the nation's 9,000 
limousine operators.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time 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. 2325

       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 ``Contracted Automobile 
     Regulatory Relief Act''.

     SEC. 2. REGULATION OF INTERSTATE AND CERTAIN INTRASTATE 
                   TRANSPORTATION SERVICES.

       Section 14501(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and

[[Page S1911]]

       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) prohibiting, restricting, licensing, permitting, or 
     regulating the operation of a motor vehicle that is providing 
     limousine service on an interstate basis, except in the case 
     of the State or political subdivision in which the limousine 
     operator maintains its principal place of business; or
       ``(E) requiring that a person, that has secured any 
     mandatory State license, permit, certificate, or authority to 
     operate a limousine service on an intrastate basis between or 
     among political subdivisions within the State, obtain, in 
     order to conduct limousine service between or among political 
     subdivisions of the State, a license, permit, certificate, or 
     other form of authority from any political subdivision of the 
     State other than the political subdivision in which the 
     limousine operator maintains its principal place of 
     business.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Limousine service.--The term `limousine service' 
     means a prearranged ground transportation service in a motor 
     vehicle (other than a motor vehicle providing taxicab 
     service), the seating capacity of which does not exceed 15 
     passengers (including the driver), that--
       ``(i) is provided on a dedicated, nonscheduled, charter 
     basis;
       ``(ii) is not conducted on a regular route; and
       ``(iii) does not entail shuttle service.
       ``(B) Shuttle service.--The term `shuttle service' means 
     the simultaneous provision of a nondedicated transportation 
     service to more than 1 paying customer in a case in which the 
     service provider, rather than the customer, reserves the 
     power to determine the pickup or destination point.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Burns):
  S. 2326. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to strengthen 
and clarify prohibitions on electronic eavesdropping, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


           the wireless eavesdropping protection act of 2000

 Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Wireless 
Eavesdropping Protection Act. This bill will enhance the privacy rights 
of wireless subscribers by strengthening the laws that prohibit 
eavesdropping wireless communications. Since the early days of wireless 
communications, Congress has paid particular attention to the privacy 
rights of wireless subscribers. Unfortunately, despite our best 
efforts, electronic eavesdroppers have been able to find loopholes in 
the law. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the Senator from 
Montana, Senator Burns.
  Using the loopholes, electronic eavesdroppers have been able to 
develop a ``gray market'' for modified and modifiable wireless 
scanners. Some of these individuals even advertise in magazines and on 
Internet websites that their products can be altered easily to pick up 
cellular communications. The information and equipment necessary to 
make these modifications are also widely advertised, sometimes with 
blatant offers to unblock the cellular frequencies after the equipment 
is purchased.
  The Wireless Eavesdropping Protection Act attacks these problems on 
several fronts. First, it would expand the definition of the 
frequencies that may not be scanned to include digital Personal 
Communications Service (PCS) frequencies as well as cellular ones. The 
legislation recognizes that some frequencies are shared between 
commercial mobile services and public safety users, and that the use of 
scanners to monitor public safety communications may assist in saving 
lives. As to those frequencies, the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC) may adopt such regulations as may be necessary to enhance 
privacy.
  Second, the bill would clarify that it is just as illegal to modify 
scanners for the purpose of eavesdropping as it is to manufacture or 
import them for this purpose, and it would direct the FCC to modify its 
rules to reflect this change. The bill also would amend current law to 
prohibit either the intentional interception or the intentional 
divulgence of wireless communications, so that either action on its own 
would be prohibited. Finally, the bill would require the FCC to 
investigate and take action on wireless privacy violations, regardless 
of any other investigative or enforcement action by any other federal 
agency. This provision would help ensure that these newly strengthened 
privacy protections are full enforced in the future.
  The millions of Americans who use wireless communications deserve to 
have their privacy protected. They should be able to enjoy the same 
privacy protection as landline phone users. The Wireless Eavesdropping 
Protection Act will help provide those protections, and I urge my 
colleagues to join Senator Burns and me in supporting this legislation. 
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2326

       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 ``Wireless Eavesdropping 
     Protection Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. COMMERCE IN ELECTRONIC EAVESDROPPING DEVICES.

       (a) Prohibition on Modification.--Section 302(b) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 302a(b)) is amended by 
     inserting before the period at the end thereof the following: 
     ``, or modify any such device, equipment, or system in any 
     manner that causes such device, equipment, or system to fail 
     to comply with such regulations''.
       (b) Prohibition on Commerce in Scanning Receivers.--Section 
     302(d) of such Act (47 U.S.C. 302a(d)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Equipment Authorization Regulations.--
       ``(1) Privacy protections required.--The Commission shall 
     prescribe regulations, and review and revise such regulations 
     as necessary in response to subsequent changes in technology 
     or behavior, denying equipment authorization (under part 15 
     of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any other part 
     of that title) for any scanning receiver that is capable of--
       ``(A) receiving transmissions in the frequencies that are 
     allocated to the domestic cellular radio telecommunications 
     service or the personal communications service;
       ``(B) readily being altered to receive transmissions in 
     such frequencies;
       ``(C) being equipped with decoders that--
       ``(i) convert digital domestic cellular radio 
     telecommunications service, personal communications service, 
     or protected specialized mobile radio service transmissions 
     to analog voice audio; or
       ``(ii) convert protected paging service transmissions to 
     alphanumeric text; or
       ``(D) being equipped with devices that otherwise decode 
     encrypted radio transmissions for the purposes of 
     unauthorized interception.
       ``(2) Privacy protections for shared frequencies.--The 
     Commission shall, with respect to scanning receivers capable 
     of receiving transmissions in frequencies that are used by 
     commercial mobile services and that are shared by public 
     safety users, examine methods, and may prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary, to enhance the privacy of 
     users of such frequencies.
       ``(3) Tampering prevention.--In prescribing regulations 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), the Commission shall consider 
     defining `capable of readily being altered' to require 
     scanning receivers to be manufactured in a manner that 
     effectively precludes alteration of equipment features and 
     functions as necessary to prevent commerce in devices that 
     may be used unlawfully to intercept or divulge radio 
     communication.
       ``(4) Warning labels.--In prescribing regulations under 
     paragraph (1), the Commission shall consider requiring labels 
     on scanning receivers warning of the prohibitions in Federal 
     law on intentionally intercepting or divulging radio 
     communications.
       ``(5) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term 
     `protected' means secured by an electronic method that is not 
     published or disclosed except to authorized users, as further 
     defined by Commission regulation.''.
       (c) Implementing Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal 
     Communications Commission shall prescribe amendments to its 
     regulations for the purposes of implementing the amendments 
     made by this section.

     SEC. 3. UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION OR PUBLICATION OF 
                   COMMUNICATIONS.

       Section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     605) is amended--
       (1) in the heading of such section, by inserting 
     ``interception or'' after ``unauthorized'';
       (2) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by striking 
     ``Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18, United 
     States Code, no person'' and inserting ``No person'';
       (3) in the second sentence of subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``intentionally'' before ``intercept''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``communication and divulge'' and inserting 
     ``communication, and no person having intercepted such a 
     communication shall intentionally divulge'';
       (4) in the fourth sentence of subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``intercepted, shall''; and
       (B) by striking ``thereof) or'' and inserting ``thereof); 
     or (B)'';
       (5) by striking the last sentence of subsection (a) and 
     inserting the following: ``Nothing in this subsection 
     prohibits an

[[Page S1912]]

     interception or disclosure of a communication as authorized 
     by chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code.''; and
       (6) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``fined not more than $2,000 or''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``or fined under title 18, United States 
     Code,'' after ``6 months,'';
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``any violation'' and 
     inserting ``any receipt, interception, divulgence, 
     publication, or utilization of any communication in 
     violation'';
       (C) in paragraph (4), by striking ``any other activity 
     prohibited by subsection (a)'' and inserting ``any receipt, 
     interception, divulgence, publication, or utilization of any 
     communication in violation of subsection (a)''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Notwithstanding any other investigative or 
     enforcement activities of any other Federal agency, the 
     Commission shall investigate alleged violations of this 
     section and may proceed to initiate action under section 503 
     to impose forfeiture penalties with respect to such violation 
     upon conclusion of the Commission's investigation.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, 
        Mr. Breaux, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Reed, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. 
        Schumer):
  S. 2327. A bill to establish a Commission on Ocean Policy, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                           oceans act of 2000

 Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Oceans Act of 2000, a bill calling for a plan of action for the twenty-
first century to explore, protect, and use our oceans and coasts 
through the coming millennium. I am pleased to be joined in this 
endeavor by my colleagues, Senators Stevens, Snowe, Kerry, Breaux, 
Inouye, Cleland, Wyden, Akaka, Boxer, Murray, Lautenberg, Feinstein, 
Lieberman, Moynihan, Reed, Sarbanes, and Schumer.
  This is not the first time I have come before you to advocate 
legislation to ensure our national ocean policy is coordinated, 
effective, and sustainable for future generations. In 1997, I 
introduced an Oceans Act to create both an independent ocean commission 
and a federal interagency ocean council. While the Senate passed this 
bill unanimously, it was not enacted before the end of the 105th 
Congress. We continued the work we started in 1997 by introducing the 
Senate-passed bill as S. 959, cosponsored by 23 Senators from both 
sides of the aisle, in May of last year. I now introduce the Oceans Act 
of 2000, a new bill that reflects the lessons learned among state and 
federal policymakers, ocean-related industries, and public interest 
groups who worked together during and after the 1998 Year of the Ocean.
  What we heard loud and clear from these groups was the need for a 
balanced, high-level national commission to determine whether the 
United States is managing its oceans and coasts wisely, and how we can 
improve or refocus our efforts. Thus, the Oceans Act of 2000 focuses 
exclusively on the appointment of an independent national Ocean 
Commission to recommend ways to ensure our nation's ocean policy is 
coordinated, effective, and sustainable for future generations. I 
believe this is both improved and streamlined legislation that will 
enjoy wide support from industry, conservation groups, and States. 
Already we have received letters of support from a cross-section of 
these interests, all of whom believe we cannot wait any longer to enact 
this important legislation.
  Mr. President, it is critical that we enact the Oceans Act of 2000 
this year. In 1966 Congress enacted legislation to establish a 
Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources (known as the 
Stratton Commission for its chairman, Julius Stratton) that was to 
recommend a comprehensive national program to explore the oceans, 
develop marine and coastal resources, and conserve the sea. The 
Stratton Commission's report and recommendations have shaped U.S. ocean 
policy for three decades. We have long needed to take a hard look at 
this legacy, and a national Ocean Commission could comprehensively 
evaluate concerns that cannot be viewed effectively through current 
federal processes or through privately-commissioned studies. For 
example, an Ocean Commission could evaluate charges that the most 
critical coastal management issues, such as fishery conservation and 
data needs, are not given appropriate priority and funding. It could 
consider whether ocean management regimes that have developed over the 
last 30 years under a variety of agencies are duplicative and 
uncoordinated, resulting in costly or time-consuming requirements that 
may provide little incremental environmental benefit. Finally, it could 
address the argument that we lack a plan to evalute and plan for future 
resource needs or to derive benefits from discoveries made possible by 
advances in ocean technology.

  It would be difficult to coherently address all these concerns 
without the high-level comprehensive review provided by this 
legislation. The Oceans Act of 2000 would establish a 16-member 
Commission, similar to the Stratton Commission, to examine ocean and 
coastal activities and report within 18 months on recommendations for a 
national policy. The Commission members would be selected from 
individuals nominated by majority and minority representatives in both 
houses of Congress. Eligible individuals include those representing 
state and local governments, ocean-related industries and public 
interest groups. I have included new provisions stating that the 
membership should be balanced geographically to the extent consistent 
with maintaining the highest level of expertise.
  The Oceans Act of 2000 specifies that the Commission should examine 
concerns that range from priority and planning issues to regulatory 
reform. The Commission is specifically charged with evaluating the 
cumulative regulatory effect of the myriad of ocean and coastal 
management regimes, and crafting recommendations for resolving 
inconsistencies. To ensure we can meet future technical and funding 
challenges and set our national priorities appropriately, the 
Commission is directed to review the known and anticipated supply of, 
and demand for, ocean and coastal resources, as well as review 
opportunities for development or investment in new products, 
technologies, or markets related to ocean and coastal activities. 
Because I believe the Commission should focus on large-scale ocean and 
coastal policy questions, the bill includes a provision clarifying that 
the Commission recommendations shall not be specific to the lands and 
waters within a single state.
  Finally, once the Commission issues its recommendations, the 
President must report to Congress on how he will respond to or 
implement Commission recommendations. We want to be sure that this body 
is fully informed of, and participates in, how the Nation proceeds once 
the Commission has completed its work. Finally, the effective date of 
the Act is at December 31, 2000 in order to enable the current 
Administration to complete its interagency ocean initiative before the 
end of the current term, and allow the incoming Administration time to 
evaluate the Commission nominees and make appointments.
  This version does not include a federal interagency Ocean Council--I 
believe that this function is now being filled by the sub-cabinet level 
Ocean Policy Task Force process announced by the Administration last 
year. Establishing a second interagency council now would be 
duplicative, and it is my firm belief that the independent Commission 
will adequately assess whether the existing interagency process is 
appropriate or sufficient to address its recommendations. However, it 
is my hope that interagency coordination on oceans policy will remain 
an important priority for the next Administration. And I look forward 
to the day that ocean policy issues are given the highest priority 
within the federal government by a Cabinet-level entity, without the 
infighting or discord that has impeded our progress on these issues.
  Mr. President, this legislation is both appropriate and long overdue. 
By the end of this decade about 60% of Americans will live along our 
coasts, which account for less than 10% of our land area. I am amazed 
that in this era, when we've invested billions of dollars in exploring 
other planets, we know so little about the ocean and coastal systems 
upon which we and other living

[[Page S1913]]

things depend. Large storms events like Hurricanes Floyd and Hugo, 
driven by ocean-circulation patterns, pose the ultimate risk to human 
health and safety. El Nino-related climate events have led to increased 
incidence of malaria in areas of Colombia and Venezuela. Harmful algal 
blooms have been linked to deaths of sea lions in California and 
manatees in Florida, and we are still searching to understand their 
effects on humans. Mr. President, the oceans are integral to our lives 
but we are not putting a priority on finding ways to learn more about 
them, and what they may hold for our future. The oceans are home to 80% 
of all life forms on Earth, but only 1% of our biotechnology R&D budget 
will focus on marine life forms. Of the 4 manned submersibles in the 
world capable of descending to half of the ocean's maximum depth, not a 
single one of them is operated by the United States!
  The Stratton Commission stated in 1969: ``How fully and wisely the 
United States uses the sea in the decades ahead will affect profoundly 
its security, its economy, its ability to meet increasing demands for 
food and raw materials, its positions and influence in the World 
community, and the quality of the environment in which its people 
live.'' those words are as true today as they were 30 years ago.
  Mr. President, it is time to look towards the next 30 years. This 
bill offers us the vision and understanding needed to establish sound 
ocean and coastal policies for the 21st century, and I think the 
cosponsors of the legislation for joining with me in recognizing its 
significance. We look forward to working together in the bipartisan 
spirit of the Stratton Commission to enact legislation this year that 
ensures the development of an integrated national ocean and coastal 
policy well into the next millennium.

                          ____________________