[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 38 (Thursday, March 30, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1987-S1996]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Grassley):
S. 2328. A bill to prevent identity fraud in consumer credit
transactions and credit reports, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT OF 2000
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to send to the desk a bill
cosponsored by Senator Kyl of Arizona and Senator Grassley of Iowa for
reference to committee.
The bill is entitled the ``Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2000.''
The crime of identity theft has become one of the major law
enforcement challenges of the new economy because vast quantities of
sensitive personal information are now vulnerable to criminal
interception and misuse.
What is identity theft? Identity theft occurs when one person uses
another person's Social Security number, birth date, driver's license
number, or other identifying information to obtain credit cards, car
loans, phone plans, or other services in the potential victim's name.
Of course, the victim does not know the theft has happened until he or
she receives bills for items he or she didn't buy; plans for which he
or she didn't contract, and so on.
Identity thieves get personal information in a myriad of ways. They
steal wallets and purses containing identification cards. They use
personal information found on the Internet. They steal mail, including
preapproved credit offers and credit statements. They fraudulently
obtain credit reports or they get someone else's personnel records at
work.
All indications are that there is an alarming growth of this highly
invasive crime. I believe the time has come to do something about it. A
national credit bureau has reported that the total number of identity
theft inquiries to its Theft Victim Assistance Department grew from
35,000 theft inquiries in 1992 to over one-half million in 1997. That
is over a 1,400-percent increase. It is national. It touches every
State and it impacts every area of our citizenry.
The United States Postal Inspection Service reports that 50,000
people a year have become victims of identity theft since it first
began collecting information on identity theft in the mid-1990s. In
total, the Treasury Department estimates that identity theft annually
causes between $2 and $3 billion in losses from credit cards alone.
The legislation I introduce today, along with Senators Kyl and
Grassley, tackles this issue. It makes it harder for criminals to
access another person's private information, it gives consumers more
tools to uncover fraudulent activity conducted in their name, and it
expands the authority of the Social Security Administration to
prosecute identity theft.
The Identity Theft Prevention Act makes it harder for criminals to
steal personal information. First, it closes a loophole in the Fair
Credit Reporting Act that permits personal identifying information such
as Social Security numbers, one's mother's maiden name, and birth date
to be distributed without restriction to marketers. This sensitive
information would be treated under this bill like any other part of the
credit report, with its disclosure restricted to businesses needing the
data for extensions of credit, employment applications, insurance
applications, or other permissible purposes.
This bill codifies, also, the practice of placing fraud alerts on a
consumer's credit file and gives the Federal Trade Commission the
authority to impose fines against credit issuers that ignore the alert.
Too many credit issuers are presently ignoring fraud alerts to the
detriment of identity theft victims.
Additionally, the bill requires credit bureaus to investigate
discrepancies between their records and the address, birth date, and
other personal information submitted as a part of an individual's
application for credit, so that telltale signs of fraudulent
applications such as incorrect addresses are immediately flagged.
The bill improves how credit card companies monitor requests for new
credit cards or changes of address. For example, it requires that
credit card holders always be notified at their original address when a
duplicate card is sent to a new address.
This legislation also gives consumers more access to the personal
information collected about them, which is a critical tool in combating
identity theft. Currently, six States--Colorado, Georgia,
Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, and New Jersey--have statutes that
entitle consumers to one free personal credit report annually. This act
makes this a national requirement. Every consumer across this Nation
would have access to a free credit report. In addition, consumers could
review the personal information collected about them by individual
reference services for a reasonable fee. With greater access to their
own personal information, consumers can proactively check their records
for evidence of identity theft and uncover other errors.
We have worked with the staff of the Federal Trade Commission in
preparing this legislation. I believe the staff of the FTC is
supportive of this bill. This bill is also supported by the Consumer
Federation of America.
We try to empower victims in this bill. This legislation calls for
measures to help identity theft victims recover from the crime. In
cases of identity theft, all too often victims get treated as if they
were the criminals. Victims receive hostile notices from creditors who
mistakenly believe they have not paid their bills. Victims' access to
credit is jeopardized, and they can spend years trying to restore their
good name.
This legislation calls upon the credit industry to assist victims in
notifying credit issuers of fraudulent charges by developing a single
model credit reporting form. However, should the credit industry fail
to implement these measures, the Federal Trade Commission would then be
authorized to take action.
Maureen Mitchell, an identity theft victim, recently described why
this assistance is needed at a hearing before the Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Government Information, a
subcommittee on which I am ranking member. She said:
I have logged over 400 hours of time trying to clear my
name and restore my good credit. Words are unable to
adequately express the gamut of emotions that I feel as a
victim.
Another victim wrote to me:
I have spent an ungodly number of hours trying to correct
the damage that has been done by the individual who stole my
identity. Professionally, as a teacher and a tutor, my hours
are worth $35. I have been robbed of $5,250 in time. I have
been humiliated in my local stores because checks have been
rejected at the checkout. I am emotionally drained. I am a
victim and Congress needs to recognize me as such.
We try in this bill to do that.
This legislation targets the theft and misuse of another person's
Social Security number, a major cause of identity theft. While the
Social Security Administration has the ability to impose civil
penalties for misusing a Social Security number to falsely obtain
government benefits, it has no authority over other offenses involving
the misuse of Social Security numbers. This bill gives them that
authority. The
[[Page S1988]]
Identity Theft Prevention Act authorizes the Social Security
Administration to impose civil monetary penalties against any
individual who:
(1) knowingly uses another's Social Security number on the basis of
false information provided by them or another person;
(2) falsely represents a number to be a Social Security number when
it is not;
That means, makes up a number, which people do.
(3) alters a Social Security card; or
(4) compels the disclosure of a Social Security card in violation of
the law.
I think these provisions enable the Social Security Administration to
throw its full weight into the investigation and civil prosecution of
identity theft involving Social Security numbers.
In conclusion, I hope my colleagues find this bill worthy and pass
it. This bill implements a number of practical, concrete measures to
close down the flow of private information to individuals with criminal
intent. In this new technology-driven economy, consumers don't need to
be left vulnerable. They shouldn't be left without recourse to
predators who are out to steal their good name.
I think we have a very practical solution. It is well thought out. It
is well drafted. It has been worked out with the staff of the FTC. My
hope is, when it goes to the Banking Committee, that committee would
take a good look at it and pass it. This is an increasing problem.
There is no reason to believe it will stop. Without Congress providing
basic protections to individuals who are the victims, it will continue
to grow.
______
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. Hutchinson):
S. 2329. A bill to improve the administration of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
legislation to improve the animal and plant health inspection service
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, the Wildlife Services Division of the
United States Department of Agriculture needs assistance in expediting
proper bird management activities. I am here today to introduce
legislation that accomplishes this goal.
Proper migratory bird management is important to the state of
Arkansas for a number of reasons. We are deemed ``The Natural State''
due to the numerous outdoor recreational opportunities that exist in
the state. Fishing, hunting, and bird watching opportunities abound
throughout Arkansas. Maintaining proper populations of wildlife,
especially migratory birds, is essential for sustaining a balanced
environment.
In Arkansas, aquaculture production has taken great strides in recent
years. The catfish industry in the state has grown rapidly and Arkansas
currently ranks second nationally in acreage and production of catfish.
The baitfish industry is not far behind, selling more than 15 million
pounds of fish annually, with a cash value in excess of $43 million. I
have been a great supporter of this industry since my days in the House
of Representatives and I am concerned about the impact the double
breasted cormorant is having on this industry. In the words of one of
my constituents, ``The double-crested cormorant has become a natural
disaster!'' I am pleased that the Fish and Wildlife Service has agreed
to develop a national management plan for the double breasted
cormorant. I am hopeful that an effective management program will be
the result of these efforts.
One of my first priorities since coming to Congress in 1992 has been
to work to make government more efficient and effective. To
specifically address what I see as an inequity among government
agencies regarding this issue, I am introducing a bill today that gives
Wildlife Service employees as much authority to manage and take
migratory birds as any U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee. After
all, Wildlife Services biologists are professional wildlife managers
providing the front line of defense against such problems. With this
legislation I would like to recognize the excellent job that Wildlife
Services has done and is doing for bird management.
Currently, USDA-Wildlife Services is required to apply for and
receive a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before they
can proceed with any bird collection or management activities. This
process is redundant and unnecessary. Oftentimes, Wildlife Services
finds that by the time a permit arrives, the birds for which the permit
was applied for are already gone. I hope that this legislation will
lead to a more streamlined effort for management purposes and I urge
both agencies, USDA and the Fish and Wildlife Service, to work together
to accomplish this goal.
I would like to thank my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Tim
Hutchinson, for joining me in this effort and look forward to working
with my colleagues to ensure that government is operating efficiently.
______
By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Robb, Mr. Nickles,
and Mr. Mack):
S. 2330. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal
the excise tax on telephone and other communication service; to the
Committee on Finance.
legislation to repeal the telephone excise tax
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today--along with Senator
Breaux and others--to introduce a bill to repeal the telephone excise
tax. It is a tax that is outdated, unfair, and complex for both
consumers to understand and for the collectors to administer. It cannot
be justified on any tax policy grounds.
The federal government has had the American consumer on ``hold'' for
too long when it comes to this tax. The telephone excise tax has been
around for over 102 years. In fact, it was first imposed in 1898--just
22 years after the telephone itself was invented. So quickly was it
imposed that it almost seems that Uncle Sam was there to collect it
before Alexander Graham Bell could put down the receiver from the first
call. In fact, the tax is so old that Bell himself would have paid it!
This tax on talking--as it is known--currently stands at 3%. Today,
about 94% of all American families have telephone service. That means
that virtually every family in the United States must tack an
additional 3% on to their monthly phone bill. The federal tax applies
to local phone service; it applies to long distance service; and it
even applies in some cases to the extra amounts paid for state and
local taxes. It is estimated that this tax costs the American public
more than $5 billion per year.
The telephone excise tax is a classic story of a tax that has been
severed from its original justifications, but lives on solely to
collect money.
In truth, the federal phone tax has had more legislative lives than a
cat. When the tax was originally imposed, Teddy Roosevelt was leading
the Rough Riders up San Juan Hill. At that time, it was billed as a
luxury tax, as only a small portion of the American public even had
telephones. The tax was repealed in the early 20th century but then was
reinstated at the beginning of World War I. It was repealed and
reinstated a few more times until 1941, when it was made permanent to
raise money for World War II. In the mid-60s, Congress scheduled the
elimination of the phone tax, which had reached levels of 10 and 25
percent. But once again, the demands of war intervened, as the
elimination of the tax was delayed to help pay for Vietnam. In 1973,
the phone tax began to phase-out, but one year before it was about to
be eliminated, it rose up yet again--this time justified by the
rationale of deficit reduction--and has remained with us ever since.
This tax is a pure money grab by the federal government--it does not
pass any of the traditional criteria used for evaluating tax policy.
First, this phone tax is outmoded. Once upon a time, it could have been
argued that telephone service was a luxury item and that only the rich
would be affected. As we all know, there is nothing further from the
truth today.
Second, the federal phone tax is unfair. Because this tax is a flat
3%, it applies disproportionately to low and middle income people. For
example, studies show that an American family making less than $50,000
per year spends at least 2% of its income on telephone service. A
family earning less than $10,000 per year spends over 9% of its income
on telephone service. Imposing a tax on those families for a
[[Page S1989]]
service that is a necessity in a modern society is simply not fair.
Third, the federal phone tax is complex. Once upon a time, phone
service was simple--there was one company who provided it. It was an
easy tax to administer. Now, however, phone service is intertwined with
data services and Internet access, and it brings about a whole new set
of complexities. For instance, a common way to provide high speed
Internet access is through a digital subscriber line. This DSL line
allows a user to have simultaneous access to the Internet and to
telephone communications. How should it be taxed? Should the tax be
apportioned? Should the whole line be tax free? And what will we do
when cable, wireless, and satellite companies provide voice and data
communications over the same system? The burdensome complexity of today
will only become more difficult tomorrow.
As these questions are answered, we run the risk of distorting the
market by favoring certain technologies. There are already numerous
exceptions and carve-outs to the phone tax. For instance, private
communications services are exempt from the tax. That allows large,
sophisticated companies to establish communications networks and avoid
paying any federal phone tax. It goes without saying that American
families do not have that same option.
With new technology, we also may exacerbate the inequities of the tax
and contribute to the digital divide. For example, consider two
families that decide it's time to connect their homes to the Internet.
The first family installs another phone line for regular Internet
access. The second family decides to buy a more expensive, dedicated
high speed line for Internet access. The first family definitely gets
hit with the phone tax, while the second family may end up paying no
tax at all on their connection. I can't see any policy rationale for
that result.
Speaking of complexity, let me ask if anyone has taken a look at
their most recent phone bill. It is a labyrinth of taxes and fees piled
one on top of another. We may not be able to figure out what all the
fees are for; but we do know that they add a big chunk to our phone
bill. According to a recent study, the mean tax rate across the country
on telecommunications is slightly over 18%. That is about a 6% rise in
the last 10 years. In my little state of Delaware, the average tax rate
on telecommunications now stands at 12%. I can't control the state and
local taxes that have been imposed, but I can do my part with respect
to the federal taxes. I seek to remove this burden from the citizens of
my state--and all Americans across the country.
The technological changes in America have increased productivity and
revolutionized our economy. As members of Congress, we need to make
sure that our tax policies do not stifle that economic expansion. We
should not adhere to policies that are a relic from a different time.
In 1987, even before the deregulation of the telecommunications market,
the Treasury Department concluded that there were ``no strong arguments
in favor of the communications excise tax.''
In today's economy, the arguments for repeal are even stronger.
Earlier this year, the National Governors Association issued a report
concluding that ``policymakers need to create a telecommunications tax
structure that more accurately reflects the new economic realities of
the market and to ensure that current state tax policy does not inhibit
growth in the telecommunications industry.'' Moreover, the Advisory
Commission on Electronic Commerce, which Congress established to study
the issue of Internet taxation, appears to have reached near unanimous
agreement that the phone excise tax should be repealed.
Mr. President, it is time to end the federal phone tax. For too long
while America has been listening to a dial tone, Washington has been
hearing a dollar tone. This tax is outmoded. It has been here since
Alexander Graham Bell himself was alive. It is unfair. We are today
taxing a poor family with a tax that was originally meant for luxury
items. And it is complex. Only a communications engineer can today
understand the myriad of taxes levied on a common phone bill and only
the federal government has the wherewithal to keep track of who and
what will be taxed. Mr. President, it is time we hung up the phone tax
once and for all. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its
repeal.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
with several of my colleagues on the Finance Committee to repeal the
telephone excise tax that originated during the Spanish American War.
Fiscal discipline in the past seven years has put us in a position that
we could not have imagined even a few short years ago. We now have
opportunities to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, pay down our
burgeoning national debt and make investments that keep our economy
rolling. Along the way, we will have opportunities to correct
inequities in the Tax Code. Currently, all users of telephone services
pay a 3% excise tax on their use. Repealing this tax will make phone
service and internet access more affordable for hardworking families.
In order to decrease the expanding digital divide, we must eliminate
policies that discourage families from connecting to the internet.
While I continue to believe that the best use of our growing surplus is
to pay down the debt and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, I am
pleased that we are entering a period where we can consider legislation
that will sustain our high technology growth at the same time that we
are shrinking the digital divide.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor with my
distinguished colleague, Senator Roth, a bill that will repeal the
federal excise on telephone service. This tax is outdated, highly
regressive and has lasted entirely too long.
The ``tax on talking'' was originally levied as a luxury tax to fund
the Spanish-American War. At the time, only a small number of wealthy
individuals had access to telephone service. Telephones are no longer
luxuries that only the very wealthy can afford. They are basic fixtures
in every American household. And with the creation of the Internet,
telephone service has become the lifeline of the new economy. This
expansion of telephone service and its many uses has revealed the
regressive nature of the ``tax on talking.'' Today, it is low-income
families who are hit the hardest by this excise tax, since they pay a
higher percentage of their income on telephone service than higher
income families.
Mr. President, with the almost universal subscription to telephone
service, the repeal of this telephone tax would provide tax relief to
virtually every family in the United States. I urge my colleagues to
cosponsor this important piece of legislation. It is time we ended over
100 years of Americans paying this regressive and unnecessary tax on
telephone service.
______
By Mr. HOLLINGS:
S. 2331. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
recalculate the franchise fee owned by Fort Sumter Tours, Inc., a
concessioner providing services to Fort Sumter National Monument, South
Carolina; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
fort sumter national monument concessions
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
legislation in an attempt to settle a long-standing dispute between the
National Park Service (NPS) and Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. (FST) regarding
the calculation of FST's Concessioner Franchise Fees.
Fort Sumter National Monument was established by Congress in 1948 and
is located in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. Congress
directed that the National Park Service (NPS) ``Shall maintain and
preserve it [the fort] for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of
the United States.'' (16 USC 450ee et. seq.)
Since 1962, the private concessioner, Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. (FST),
has provided visitors with service to this national monument. In 1985,
FST was asked by NPS to acquire a new landside docking facility and
invest in a new boat that would cost FST over $1 million. In exchange
for these investments, an agreement was reached between FST and the NPS
to provide a fifteen-year contract, with a franchise fee set by the NPS
at 4.25 percent of gross receipts.
By statutory law all park concessionaires are required to pay a
franchise fee based upon a percentage of
[[Page S1990]]
their gross receipts. In 1992 the NPS unilaterally attempted to
increase FST's franchise fee from 4.25 percent to 12 percent and a
dispute has existed ever since. This increase was based upon a
Franchise Fee Analysis (FFA) prepared by the NPS, which FST claims to
be inconsistent with Park Service guidelines existing at that time. I
believe if errors have been made they need to be corrected.
While the Courts have ruled that the NPS has the authority to raise
the franchise fee, that is not the actual dispute. The actual dispute
is whether the NPS calculated the increase in these fees appropriately.
This legislation provides for arbitration between FST and the NPS to
settle a dispute that has lasted for almost eight years. By the NPS's
own account, FST has been a valuable service benefiting thousands and
thousands of visitors to Fort Sumter National Monument. It is time for
the NPS and FST to settle their differences and move forward.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RECALCULATION OF FRANCHISE FEE.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Franchisee.--The term ``franchisee'' means Fort Sumter
Tours, Inc., a concessioner providing service to Fort Sumter
National Monument, South Carolina.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(b) Recalculation of Franchise Fee.--Not later than 30 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall--
(1) recalculate the amount (if any) of the franchise fee
owed by the franchisee; and
(2) notify the franchisee of the recalculated amount.
(c) Arbitration.--
(1) In general.--If the amount of the franchise fee as
recalculated under subsection (a) is not acceptable to the
franchisee--
(A) the franchisee, not later than 5 days after receipt of
notification under subsection (b)(2), shall so notify the
Secretary; and
(B) the amount of the franchise fee owed shall be
determined through binding arbitration that provides for a
trial-type hearing that--
(i) includes the opportunity to call and cross-examine
witnesses; and
(ii) is subject to supervision by the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia in accordance
with the title 9, United States Code.
(2) Selection of arbitrator or arbitration panel.--
(A) Agreement on arbitrator.--For a period of not more than
30 days after the franchisee gives notification under
paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary and the franchisee shall
attempt to agree on the selection of an arbitrator to conduct
the arbitration.
(B) Panel.--If at any time the Secretary or the franchisee
declares that the parties are unable to agree on an
arbitrator--
(i) the Secretary and the franchisee shall each select an
arbitrator;
(ii) not later than 10 days after 2 arbitrators are
selected under clause (i), the 2 arbitrators shall select a
third arbitrator; and
(iii) the 3 arbitrators shall conduct the arbitration.
(3) Commencement and completion.--An arbitration proceeding
under paragraph (1)--
(A) shall commence not later than 30 days after the date on
which an arbitrator or arbitration panel is selected under
paragraph (2); and
(B) shall be completed with a decision rendered not later
than 240 days after that date.
(4) Applicable law.--
(A) Relevant time period.--The law applicable to the
recalculation of the franchise fee under this subsection
shall be the law applicable to franchise fee determinations
in effect at the beginning of the period for which the
franchise fee is payable.
(B) Previous decisions.--No previous judicial decision
regarding the franchise fee dispute that is the subject of
arbitration under this subsection may be introduced in
evidence or considered by the arbitrator or arbitration panel
for any purpose.
(5) Fees and costs.--If the franchisee is the prevailing
party in binding arbitration, the arbitrator or arbitration
panel shall award the franchisee reasonable attorney's fees
and costs for all proceedings involving the disputed
franchise fee consistent with--
(A) section 504 of title 5, United States Code; and
(B) section 2412 of title 28, United States Code.
(d) Bids and Proposals.--Until such date as any arbitration
under this Act is completed and is no longer subject to
appeal, the Secretary--
(1) shall not solicit or accept a bid or proposal for any
contract for passenger service to Fort Sumter National
Monument; and
(2) shall offer to the franchisee annual extensions of the
concessions contract in effect on the date of enactment of
this Act.
______
By Mr. GRAMS:
S. 2332. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to
permit a producer to lock in a loan deficiency payment rate for a
portion of a crop; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
the loan deficiency payment flexibility act
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Loan
Deficiency Payment Flexibility Act. The idea for this legislation came
from Peter Kalenberg, a producer from Stewart, MN, and is an example of
how a good idea can be transformed into sound public policy. It is
supported by such organizations as the Minnesota Corn Growers, the
Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation, and the Minnesota Wheat Growers
Association. These and many other groups have recognized the need for
this legislation.
As you know, Loan Deficiency Payments, otherwise known as LDPs, were
a key component of the 1996 Farm bill and have helped cushion the blow
of low commodity prices and restricted demand. However, producers in
Minnesota and other northern states have questioned the fairness of how
the LDP is administered. States farther south are able to begin harvest
before farmers in states such as Minnesota and are therefore able to
``lock in'' a more favorable LDP. This has the potential of impacting
market signals and driving down the futures price before harvest has
begun in northern states.
Mr. President, by taking the approach I am about to outline, I have
ensured that regions of the country that are currently able to utilize
an earlier LDP are not placed at a disadvantage. The components of this
legislation are simple, yet provide a common-sense approach to a
problem faced by producers in states such as Minnesota.
My ``Loan Deficiency Payment Flexibility Act'' would correct this
inequity by directing the Secretary of Agriculture to announce that
harvest has begun on a particular commodity (i.e. corn or soybeans) and
that producers throughout the United States may now utilize the Loan
Deficiency Payment. Essentially my bill does two things:
It establishes an earlier, more flexible starting date when all
producers would have the option of ``locking in'' that day's LDP. They
would be able to do so once throughout the duration of the harvest
season.
Allows a producer to lock-in an LDP for up to 85% of his or her
actual yield. Because the LDP is ``locked in'' on paper, no payments
are actually made until the crop is harvested and we avoid the problems
posed by the old deficiency payment system due to unanticipated high or
low yields.
Although there is no guarantee that the LDP will be better in the
early summer versus the fall, my legislation will afford farmers the
opportunity to evaluate the markets and base their decision on what
best fits their management plan.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this
legislation.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 2333. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
grant the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of tobacco and other products
containing nicotine, tar, additives, and other potentially harmful
constituents and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
TOBACCO REGULATORY FAIRNESS ACT OF 2000
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
with my distinguished colleague, Senator Bingaman, that we hope will
mark the beginning of a dialogue on an issue that has tremendous
implications for our nation's public health, and more specifically, the
health and well-being of our children. Today, we are introducing the
``Tobacco Regulatory Fairness Act of 2000''.
The goal of this legislation is quite simple--to grant the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) the authority it needs to regulate the
manufacture, labeling, advertising, distribution and sale of tobacco
products.
A week ago, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the FDA does not have
the authority to regulate tobacco products, thus nullifying regulations
promulgated by the agency in August 1996.
[[Page S1991]]
While a slim majority of the court found that the agency lacked the
jurisdiction necessary to act on this class of products, the Justices
in the majority and minority both opinions acknowledged the clear
threat unregulated tobacco products poses to public health. In the
majority opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated that tobacco was
``perhaps the single most significant threat to public health in the
United States.'' Similarly, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a former
professor of mine at Harvard University School of Law, pointed out in
the dissenting opinion that FDA's ability to regulate tobacco products
clearly fit into its basic authority, ``the overall protection of the
public health.''
Although the court upheld the 1998 ruling by the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the decision does not dispute, and,
in fact, it reaffirms that the FDA is the most appropriate agency to
regulate tobacco products, given the general scope of its authority and
its emphasis on protecting the public health. Now, it is a matter of
Congress taking action to clearly give the FDA the long overdue
authority it requires.
So today, I introduce this legislation as a challenge to my
colleagues to do what is right--to debate and pass legislation that
will once and for all give FDA the tools it needs to enact regulations
that will help to protect children and others from the dangers of
tobacco.
After the long and protracted debate in the Senate two years ago on
the McCain tobacco bill, I am sure that most of my colleagues are
familiar with the numerous statistics that are often cited in relation
to the dangers of smoking and its devastating impact on society in
terms of health care costs, lost productivity, disability, and loss of
life. However, I believe these figures bear repeating. It is estimated
that today, some 50 million Americans are addicted to tobacco, and one
out of every three long-term users will die from a disease related to
their tobacco use.
The cost of tobacco use not only results in lives lost, but also has
a considerable toll on health care expenses. It is estimated that the
health care costs associated with treating tobacco-related disease
totals over $80 billion a year--with almost half being paid for by
taxpayer financed health care programs.
We also know that tobacco addiction is clearly a problem that starts
with children: almost 90 percent of adult smokers started using tobacco
at or before age 18. Each year, one million children become regular
smokers--and one-third of them will die prematurely of lung cancer,
emphysema, and similar tobacco caused diseases. Unless current trends
are reversed, five million kids under 18 alive today will die from
tobacco related diseases.
In Rhode Island, while overall cigarette use is declining slightly,
it has increased by more than 25 percent among high-schoolers.
Currently, over one-third of New England high school students under age
18 use tobacco products. In Rhode Island, over one third of high school
students smoke.
Indeed, tobacco use continues to permeate the ranks of the young. For
decades, the tobacco industry has ingeniously promoted its products. It
has done so with total disregard for the health of its customers. It
has relied upon cool, youthful images to sell its products. The tobacco
industry has taken an addiction that prematurely kills and dressed it
up as a glamorous symbol of success and sex appeal.
By providing the FDA with the appropriate and unambiguous authority,
we can be assured that these products comply with minimum health and
safety standards. Tobacco should be regulated in the same way every
other product we consume is regulated.
I will concede that there are some formidable challenges ahead--but
these challenges are not insurmountable. During the 1998 debate on the
McCain tobacco bill, a majority of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle agreed our country needed a national tobacco control policy.
While we may not have succeeded then, we cannot and must not allow the
progress the FDA has made in limiting minors' access to tobacco be
lost.
We all know that tobacco is a substance that not only reduces the
quality of one's life in the short term, but with lifelong use results
in untimely death. We have an opportunity this year to make a real
difference. Through the legislation I am introducing today, I call my
colleagues to action in the ongoing fight to protect the long term
health of the children of this country.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this commitment to enacting
legislation granting FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 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. 2333
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 ``Tobacco Regulatory Fairness
Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Cigarette smoking and tobacco use cause approximately
450,000 deaths each year in the United States.
(2) Cigarette smoking accounts for approximately
$65,000,000,000 in lost productivity and health care costs.
(3) In spite of the well-established dangers of cigarette
smoking and tobacco use, there is no Federal agency that has
any authority to regulate the manufacture, sale,
distribution, and use of tobacco products.
(4) The tobacco industry spends approximately
$4,000,000,000 each year to promote tobacco products.
(5) Each day 3,000 children try cigarettes for the first
time, many of whom become lifelong addicted smokers.
(6) There is no minimum age requirement in Federal law that
an individual must reach to legally buy cigarettes and other
tobacco products.
(7) The Food and Drug Administration is the most qualified
Federal agency to regulate tobacco products.
(8) It is inconsistent for the Food and Drug Administration
to regulate the manufacture, sale, and distribution of other
nicotine-containing products used as substitutes for
cigarette smoking and tobacco use and not be able to regulate
tobacco products in a comparable manner.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
Section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 321) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(kk) The term `tobacco product' means cigarettes, cigars,
little cigars, pipe tobacco, smokeless tobacco, snuff, and
chewing tobacco.
``(ll) The term `tobacco additive' means any substance the
intended use of which results or may reasonably be expected
to result, directly or indirectly, in its becoming a
component or otherwise affecting the characteristics of any
tobacco product.
``(mm) The term `constituent' means any element of
cigarette mainstream or sidestream smoke which is present in
quantities which represent a potential health hazard or where
the health effect is unknown.
``(nn) The term `tar' means mainstream total articulate
matter minus nicotine and water.''.
SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT.
Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 331) is amended--
(1) in subsections (a), (b), (c), (g), and (k), by striking
``or cosmetic'' and inserting ``cosmetic, or tobacco
product''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(u) The manufacture, sale, distribution, and advertising
of tobacco products in violation of regulations promulgated
by the Secretary pursuant to chapter X.''.
SEC. 5. REGULATION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``CHAPTER X--TOBACCO PRODUCTS
``SEC. 1000. REGULATION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS.
``(a) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which the Secretary receives the recommendations described in
section 1003(f), the Secretary shall promulgate regulations
governing the manufacture, sale, and distribution of tobacco
products in accordance with the provisions of the chapter.
``(b) Food and Drug Administration.--Regulations
promulgated under subsection (a) shall designate the Food and
Drug Administration as the Federal agency that regulates the
manufacture, distribution, and sale of tobacco products.
``(c) Limitation.--Regulations promulgated under subsection
(a) may not prohibit the manufacture, distribution, or sale
of a tobacco product solely on the basis that such product
causes a disease.
``(d) Sale or distribution.--Under regulations promulgated
under subsection (a) it shall be unlawful to--
``(1) sell a tobacco product to an individual under the age
of 18 years;
``(2) sell a tobacco product to an individual if such
tobacco product is intended for use by an individual under
the age of 18 years; and
``(3) sell or distribute a tobacco product if the label of
such product does not display the following statement:
`Federal Law Prohibits Sale To Minors'.
``(e) Manufacturing.--Regulations promulgated under
subsection (a) governing the manufacture of tobacco products
shall--
[[Page S1992]]
``(1) require that all additives used in the manufacture of
tobacco products are safe; and
``(2) classify as a drug any nicotine-containing product
that does not meet the definition of a tobacco product.
``SEC. 1001. ADULTERATED TOBACCO PRODUCTS.
``(a) In general.--A tobacco product shall be deemed to be
adulterated--
``(1) if such product consists in whole or in part of any
filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or is otherwise
contaminated by any poisonous or deleterious substance that
may render such product injurious to health;
``(2) if such product has been prepared, packed, or held
under insanitary conditions in which such product may have
been contaminated with filth, or in which such product may
have been rendered injurious to health; and
``(3) if the container for such product is composed, in
whole or in part, of any poisonous or deleterious substance
that may render the contents of such product injurious to
health.
``(b) Regulations.--The Secretary may by regulation
prescribe good manufacturing practices for tobacco products.
Such regulations may be modeled after current good
manufacturing practice regulations for other products
regulated under this Act.
``SEC. 1002. MISBRANDED TOBACCO PRODUCTS.
``A tobacco product shall be deemed to be misbranded--
``(1) if the labeling of such product is false or
misleading in any particular;
``(2) if in package form unless such product bears a label
containing--
``(A) the name and place of business of the tobacco product
manufacturer, packer, or distributor; and
``(B) an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents
in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count,
except that under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph
reasonable variations shall be permitted, and exemptions as
to small packages shall be established, by regulations
promulgated by the Secretary;
``(3) if any word, statement, or other information required
by or under authority of this chapter to appear on the label
or labeling is not prominently placed thereon with such
conspicuousness (as compared with other words, statements or
designs in the labeling) and in such terms as to render it
likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual
under customary conditions of purchase and use;
``(4) if such product has an established name, unless its
label bears, to the exclusion of any other nonproprietary
name, its established name is prominently printed in type as
required by the Secretary by regulation;
``(5) if the Secretary has issued regulations requiring
that the labeling of such product bear adequate directions
for use, or adequate warnings against use by children, that
are necessary for the protection of users unless the labeling
of such product conforms in all respects to such regulations;
and
``(6) if such product was manufactured, prepared,
propagated, or processed in an establishment not duly
registered as required under section 1004.
``SEC. 1003. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Food and
Drug Administration a Tobacco and Nicotine Products Advisory
Committee (hereafter referred to as the `advisory
committee').
``(b) Purpose.--The advisory committee shall assist the
Secretary in developing the regulations described in section
1000.
``(c) Membership.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this chapter, the Secretary shall appoint to the
advisory committee 10 individuals who are qualified by
training and experience to evaluate and make recommendations
regarding regulations governing the manufacture,
distribution, sale, labeling and advertising of tobacco
products.
``(2) Experts.--The members described under paragraph (1),
not including the chairperson of such advisory committee,
shall consist of--
``(A) one expert in the field of nicotine addiction;
``(B) one expert in the field of pharmacology;
``(C) one expert in the field of food and drug law;
``(D) one expert in the field of public education;
``(E) one expert in the field of toxicology;
``(F) two experts representing the interests of family
medicine, internal medicine, or pediatrics; and
``(G) two consumer representatives from the public health
community.
``(3) Ex officio.--The advisory committee shall have the
following as ex officio members:
``(A) The Director of the National Cancer Institute.
``(B) The Director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute.
``(C) The Director of National Institute on Drug Abuse.
``(D) The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
``(E) The Surgeon General of the Public Health Service.
``(4) Chairperson.--The chairperson of the advisory
committee shall be appointed by the Secretary with the advice
and consent of the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
``(d) Function.--The advisory committee shall--
``(1) review the available scientific evidence on the
effects of tobacco products on human health;
``(2) review the manufacturing process of tobacco products,
including the use of additives, sprayed on chemicals, product
development, and product manipulation;
``(3) review the role of nicotine as part of the smoking
habit, including its addictive properties and health effects;
and
``(4) review current Federal, State, and local laws
governing the manufacture, distribution, sale, labeling and
advertising of tobacco products.
``(e) Authority.--The advisory committee may hold hearings
and receive testimony and evidence as the committee
determines to be appropriate.
``(f) Recommendations.--Not later than 1 year after the
Secretary has appointed all members to the advisory
committee, such committee shall prepare and submit
recommendations regarding regulations to be promulgated under
section 1000 to the Secretary.
``SEC. 1004. REGISTRATION.
``Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of
this chapter, any manufacturer directly or indirectly engaged
in the manufacture, distribution, or sale of tobacco products
shall register with the Secretary the name and place of
business of such manufacturer.
``SEC. 1005. ADVERTISING.
``(a) Regulations.--The Federal Trade Commission, after
consultation with the Secretary and upon receipt of approval
by the Secretary, shall promulgate regulations governing the
advertising of all tobacco products.
``(b) Labels.--The Federal Trade Commission, after
consultation with the Secretary and upon receipt of approval
by the Secretary, may promulgate regulations that--
``(1) modify the warning labels required by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (15 U.S.C. 1331 et
seq.) and the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health
Education Act of 1986 (15 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.) if the
modification in the content of the label does not weaken the
health message contained in the label and is in the best
interests of the public health as determined by the
Secretary; and
``(2) increase the size and placement of such required
labels.''.
SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Records.--Section 703 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 373) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or cosmetics'' each place it appears and
inserting ``cosmetics, or tobacco products''; and
(2) by striking ``or cosmetic'' each place it appears and
inserting ``cosmetic, or tobacco product''.
(b) Factory Inspections.--Section 704 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 374) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``or cosmetics'' each place it appears and
inserting ``cosmetics, or tobacco products''; and
(B) by striking ``or restricted devices'' each place it
appears and inserting ``restricted devices, or tobacco
products''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``or cosmetic'' and
inserting ``cosmetic, or tobacco product''.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am very proud to be here
with my friend and colleague, Senator Jack Reed, to introduce the
Tobacco Regulation Fairness Act of 2000.
I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to join this effort, for it
is time for Congress to take action. We must ensure that the Food and
Drug Administration can regulate the manufacture, labeling,
advertising, distribution and sale of tobacco products.
While many are disappointed with last week's Supreme Court ruling on
FDA regulation of tobacco products, the ruling reflects reality.
Congress has not acted to give FDA the authority it needs to regulate
tobacco products. The Supreme Court's decision underscores this fact
and heightens the need for Congress to pass meaningful and
comprehensive legislation to ensure FDA authority over tobacco
products.
This legislation is the key to preventing tobacco use by teenagers
and adolescents and to preventing the sales of tobacco products to
children. If we can prevent kids from smoking, we can head off a
tremendous amount of human disease and suffering, medical costs, and
loss of life. While even tobacco companies say that they are against
kids smoking, we must look at the facts. According to the American
Cancer Society, in the course of this Congress, almost 600,000 children
will try tobacco products for the first time. Of those, nearly 200,000
will become addicted to nicotine. Additionally, over more than 90,000
people will die from tobacco related cancers.
In 1997, a study by the Center for Disease Control showed that
children and adolescents were able to buy tobacco products 67 percent
of the times they
[[Page S1993]]
tried. The CDC found that most young smokers were able to buy their own
cigarettes and were seldom asked for identification. While strides have
been made in the past 2 years, it is imperative that change continue.
The bottom line is that the Supreme Court made its decision and
Congress must act so that we can continue to make inroads into youth
smoking prevention.
Mr. President, this legislation designates the Food and Drug
Administration as the Federal agency that regulates the manufacture,
distribution and sale of tobacco products. This Act will serve to
provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority
to promulgate regulations governing the manufacture, sale and
distribution of tobacco products. Additionally, the legislation also
establishes a federal minimum age of sale of tobacco products of 18 and
require the label to state ``Federal Law Prohibits Sale to Minors.''
Mr. President, in 1989 and again in 1992, I introduced a bill to
require the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the manufacture
and sale of tobacco products. ``The Tobacco Health and Safety Act of
1992'' had a companion bill with Representative Michael Synar in the
House. These bills were very similar legislative attempts to regulate
tobacco by bringing it under the jurisdiction of the Federal Food and
Drug Administration.
I believed then and I believe now that the FDA is the appropriate
regulatory entity to address this vital issue. To do anything else is
unacceptable. It is time to give the FDA the full authority to regulate
the manufacture, sale, labeling, advertising, and promotion of tobacco
products.
The bill we introduce today is a fair and equitable approach to the
issue. It represents a strong commitment to health promotion and
disease prevention. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and work
with us to act upon this as a public health issue before we adjourn
this year.
______
By Mr. L. CHAFEE (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 2334. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
expensing of environmental remediation costs for an additional 6 years
and to include sites in metropolitan statistical areas.
legislation to extend expensing of environmental remediation costs
______
By Mr. L. CHAFEE:
S. 2335. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out a
program to provide assistance in the remediation and restoration of
brownfields, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
state and local brownfields revitalization act of 2000
Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a pair of
bills to enhance the pace and effectiveness of brownfields
redevelopment throughout the country. The first bill, entitled the
``State and Local Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2000'', will
authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to remediate and restore
brownfield sites owned by state and local governments. The second bill,
S. 2334, which I introduce with Senator Jeffords, will expand coverage
of the federal brownfields tax incentive and extend it for an
additional six years. I also am adding my name as a co-sponsor to the
``Small Business Brownfields Redevelopment Act of 1999'', S. 1408,
authored by Senator Jeffords. Along with these initiatives, I am
announcing my intention to develop broader legislation to remove
barriers to the redevelopment and restoration of brownfields.
Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used commercial or
industrial properties at which development or expansion is hindered by
the presence, or potential presence of hazardous substantives.
Countless numbers of brownfield sites blight our communities, pose
health and environmental hazards, erode our cities' tax base, and
contribute to urban sprawl. In fact, in 210 cities surveyed by the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, an estimated 21,000 brownfields sites covering
more than 81,000 acres were identified. But, we stand to reap enormous
economic, environmental, and social benefits with the successful
redevelopment of brownfield sites. The redevelopment of brownfields
capitalizes on existing infrastructure, creates a robust tax base for
local governments, attracts new businesses and jobs, mitigates urban
sprawl, and reduces the environmental and health risks to communities.
Yet, many of these contaminated sites sit abandoned because of the
presence of hazardous substances. Developers that would otherwise
restore these properties choose not to for fear of becoming tangled in
liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980, commonly referred to as Superfund. I believe
it is critical that Congress take action to ensure that the federal
government provides funding and incentives to recycle our nation's
contaminated land, remove barriers to development, and ally perceived
fears associated with Superfund liability. The bills I am introducing
today are a step toward resolving those concerns.
Let me take a moment to take a moment to explain each one.
The first bill I am introducing today is the ``State and Local
Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2000.'' This legislation would
authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to establish and implement a
program to assist state, regional, and local governments in the
remediation and restoration of brownfields sites tied to the quality,
conservation, and sustainable use of the nation's waterways and
watershed ecosystems.
Additionally, this bill would provide authority to the Corps to
conduct site characterization and planning, site design and
construction, environmental restoration, and preparation for site
development on brownfields sites owned by state, regional, or local
governments. When selecting these projects, the Corps must consider
whether the project would improve public health and safety, encourage
sustainable economic and environmental redevelopment in areas serviced
by existing infrasture, and help cure or expand parks, greenways, or
other recreational property.
Activities by the Corps would be contingent upon a 35 percent match
in cash or in-kind contribution by the state, regional, or local
government. The bill limits the Corps to spending $3,250,000 on an
individual site. However, the Secretary of the Army could increase the
cap to $5,000,000 if he determines that the size of the site or the
level of contamination warrants additional funds. To carry out the
provisions of this Act, the bill authorizes annual appropriations of
$100 million for fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
I believe this bill would make a significant, positive contribution
to the revitalization of our communities. Recently, I toured two sites
along the banks of the Woonasquatucket River in Providence. At the turn
of the century these sites housed a woollen mill and a lace and braid
factory. They have been abandoned, but debris and contamination soils
remain. They also threaten the river and the children that inevitably
explore these abandoned properties. City officials and local residents
have a wonderful vision for the cleanup of these sites that would
create a bike path and a park along the Woonasquatucket River. This
effort is integral to the success of the Woonasquatucket River Greenway
Project, a public-private initiative to increase recreational and green
space in low-income neighborhoods, thereby promoting economic
reinvestment in the area.
Despite selection of this project as a federal Brownfields Showcase
Community and contributions totaling over $1 million by the City and
State, the community is unable to complete remediation activities. And,
because the area is intended for use as a local park and will not
generate an income stream, the community cannot utilize a loan. In the
meantime, the area remains an eyesore. This bill would revitalize the
neighborhoods surrounding the Woonasquatucket River, as well as many
other projects around the country.
The Army Corps of Engineers is not new to brownfields redevelopment.
The Corps currently conducts pre-remedial activities at brownfields
sites for EPA on a fee-for-service basis. However, current law
precludes it from carrying out the necessary cleanup activities. In
addition, the Corps is limited to conducting activities for which EPA
will provide reimbursement. I believe that EPA's brownfields budget is
inadequate
[[Page S1994]]
to complete the task at hand. My bill will address these deficiencies
and spur revitalization at many sites.
The second bill (S. 2334), which I am introducing with Senator
Jeffords addresses two key deficiencies in current law. It would expand
the definition of a targeted area to include any brownfield site
located within a metropolitan statistical area making the current tax
incentives more useful; and extending it for an additional six years.
Under current law, parties that remediate brownfields sites in
targeted areas are eligible to expense, or deduct, the costs of
environmental restoration in the year the costs are incurred. A
targeted area is any population census tract with a poverty rate of
more than 20 percent, any empowerment zone or enterprise community, or
any site deemed to an EPA pilot project before February 1, 1997. This
tax incentive is scheduled to expire at the end of 2001.
The vast underutilization of the existing tax incentive highlights
the need for a re-examination of the goals we are pursuing. As chairman
of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste
Control, and Risk Assessment, I have heard complaints that parties
eager to utilize the existing federal tax incentive have not done so
for one of two reasons. The first reason is the limitation on the areas
covered by the incentive. Unless the project constitutes an early EPA
pilot project or lies within an impoverished community, the tax
incentive does not apply. In addition, the tax incentive expires
frequently, which creates uncertainty.
Let me provide an example. Let us assume that a party is willing to
purchase contaminated land and clean it up in order to redevelop the
property. However, a party may be unable to make the acquisition and
complete the remediation within one calendar year. Uncertain as to
whether the tax incentive will be reinstated in the next year may
discourage the party from taking on the risk. To address this issue,
the bill extends the tax incentive until the end of calendar year 2007.
I believe that this will provide certainty to those who see the wisdom
in redeveloping these untapped properties of value.
In addition, I am pleased to add my name as co-sponsor to the Small
Business Brownfield Redevelopment Act of 1999 (S. 1408) offered by
Senators Jeffords, Moynihan, Schumer, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Leahy.
This bill is an important component of my vision for brownfields
redevelopment throughout the nation. S. 1408 provides $50 million to
the Small Business Administration to finance projects that assist
qualified small businesses, or prospective small business owners, in
carrying out site assessment and cleanup activities at brownfields
sites. I believe that this bill will assist small businesses in Rhode
Island and the country cleanup brownfield sites.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that brownfields are a
critical national issue, because abandoned or underused properties dot
every community, large and small. The bills I have introduced and co-
sponsored today are critical components of the bigger picture, but we
can do more. To complement these initiatives, I am announcing today
that I intend to work on legislation to provide funding through the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for assessment and cleanup of
brownfields, and clarify liability to encourage the transfer of
property. I would also like to provide assurances that while we work to
facilitate state cleanup programs, EPA will take action at a
brownfields site when necessary to protect human health and the
environment.
As I have studied CERCLA and Rhode Island's Superfund sites, I have
heard from many people of all political stripes that brownfields
legislation can be achieved on a bipartisan basis. They have urged us
to address the issues as soon as possible. I have visited brownfields
sites in Rhode Island and have seen the potential that exists to
revitalize our communities if we can provide sufficient funding,
clarify liability issues, and remove other barriers to redevelopment. I
am hopeful that if we work in a bipartisan manner, we will be
successful in passing brownfields legislation that the President can
sign this year.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Schumer, and Mrs.
Murray):
S. 2336. A bill to authorize funding for networking and information
technology research and development at the Department of Energy for
fiscal years 2001 through 2005, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
networking and information technology research and development of
energy missions act
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce
the ``Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
for Department of Energy Missions Act,'' which is cosponsored by
Senators Craig, Schumer, and Murray.
This bipartisan bill is in recognition of the critical contributions
and future potential of computing programs within the Department of
Energy's Office of Science. These programs have played a key role in
the development of high performance computing, networking, and
information technology. Some of their notable accomplishments have
included: the establishment of the first national supercomputer center,
the development of mathematical algorithm libraries for high
performance computing, the development of a critical interface and
other software packages to support high speed parallel interconnection
of supercomputers, and the development of a fundamental component of
how information is routed on the internet. Recent recognition of the
scientists supported by this program have included: the 1998 Fernbach
award; the 1998 Gordon Bell prize; awards for the best overall paper as
well and the best of show award at the Supercomputing 1998 conference;
the best paper and a number of special awards at the Supercomputing
1999 conference, the Maxwell prize in applied mathematics, and the 2000
Norbert Wiener Prize in applied mathematics.
The future potential of these programs is immense and not limited to
the computation, networking, and information sciences. There is also
great potential for helping not only the mission needs of the
Department of Energy but also the broader scientific community and the
public through increased understanding of biological systems, energy
and environmental systems, chemical, physical, and plasma systems, and
high energy and nuclear systems. This understanding is key to our more
efficient and environmentally friendly production and utilization of
energy and material goods.
The notable features of the bill include: an authorization for
increased funding similar in scope to what is proposed in the House of
Representatives for the National Science Foundation computational
efforts; an open competition for funding; a collaborative program
between DOE program offices; building partnerships between
laboratories, universities, and industry; a focus on solutions to
networking and information technology problems that are critical to the
achieving DOE missions; and management of funding provided to NNSA
laboratories administered by the sponsoring program of the Department.
This last provision is consistent with the legislation which created
the NNSA in that it maintains accountability for new money authorized
by this bill in DOE civilian programs so that such funding will remain
within the purview of civilian programs under the oversight of the
authorizing committee for this legislation, while maintaining the
principle that funding at laboratories under the purview of the NNSA be
consistent with their general programmatic missions.
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. 2336
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 ``Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development for Department of Energy
Missions Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Department of Energy, especially in its Office of
Science research programs, has played a key role in the
development of high performance computing, networking and
information technology. Important contributions by the
Department include pioneering the concept of remote,
interactive
[[Page S1995]]
access to supercomputers; developing the first interactive
operating system for supercomputers; establishing the first
national supercomputer center; laying the mathematical
foundations for high performance computing with numerical
linear algebra libraries now used by thousands of researchers
worldwide; leading the transition to massively parallel
supercomputing by developing software for parallel virtual
machines; and contributing to the development of the Internet
with software that is now used in the TCP/IP system
responsible for routing information packages to their correct
destinations.
(2) The Department of Energy's contributions to networking
and information technology have played a key role in the
Department's ability to accomplish its statutory missions in
the past, in particular through the development of remote
access to its facilities. Continued accomplishments in these
areas will be needed to continue to carry out these missions
in the future.
(3) The Department of Energy, through its portfolio of
unique facilities for scientific research including high
energy and nuclear physics laboratories, neutron source and
synchrotron facilities, and computing and communications
facilities such as the National Energy Research Scientific
Computing Center and Energy Sciences Network, has a unique
and vital role in advancing the scientific research,
networking and information technology infrastructure for the
nation.
(4) The challenge of remote creation of, access to,
visualization of, and simulation with petabyte-scale
(1,000,000 gigabyte) data sets generated by experiments at
DOE scientific facilities is common to a number of different
scientific disciplines. Effective treatment of these problems
will likely require collaborative efforts between the
university, national laboratory and industrial sectors and
involve close interactions of the broader scientific
community with computational, networking and information
scientists.
(5) The solution of contemporary challenges facing the
Department of Energy in developing and using high-performance
computing, networking, communications, and information
technologies will be of immense value to the entire nation.
Potential benefits include: effective earth, climate, and
energy systems modeling; understanding aging and fatigue
effects in materials crucial to energy systems; promoting
energy-efficient chemical production through rational
catalyst design; predicting the structure and functions of
the proteins coded by DNA and their response to chemical and
radiation damage; designing more efficient combustion
systems; and understanding turbulent flow in plasmas in
energy and advanced materials applications.
SEC. 3. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAMS.
(a) High-Performance Computing Act Program.--Section 203(a)
of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C.
5523(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) conduct an integrated program of research,
development, and provision of facilities to develop and
deploy to scientific and technical users the high-performance
computing and collaboration tools needed to fulfill the
statutory missions of the Department of Energy.''.
(b) Computation, Networking and Information Technology
Collaborative Program.--Within the funds authorized under
this Act, the Secretary shall provide up to $25,000,000 in
each fiscal year for a program of collaborative projects
involving remote access to high-performance computing assets
or remote experimentation over network facilities. The
program shall give priority to cross-disciplinary projects
that involve more than one office within the Office of
Science of the Department of Energy or that couple the Office
of Science with Departmental energy technology offices.
(c) Program Line Authority.--To the extent consistent with
their national security mission, laboratories administered by
the National Nuclear Security Administration may compete for
funding authorized in this Act to the same extent and on the
same terms as other Department of Energy offices and
laboratories. Such funding at laboratories administered by
the National Nuclear Security Administration shall be under
the direct programmatic control of the sponsoring program for
the funding in the Department of Energy.
(d) Merit Review.--All grants, contracts, cooperative
agreements, or other financial assistance awarded under
programs authorized in this Act shall be made only after
being subject to independent merit review by the Department
of Energy.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Energy for the purposes of carrying out section 203 of the
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5523) and
this Act $190,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; $250,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002; $285,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
$300,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and $300,000,000 for
fiscal year 2005.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
S. 2337. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
individuals a refundable credit against income tax for the purchase of
private health insurance, and to establish State health insurance
safety-net programs; to the Committee on Finance.
THE FAIR CARE FOR THE UNINSURED ACT
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend and
colleague, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, in introducing the Fair Care for
the Uninsured Act of 2000, legislation aimed at ensuring that all
Americans, regardless of income, have a basic level of resources to
purchase health insurance.
As we all know, the growing ranks of uninsured Americans--currently
44 million and increasing at a rate of 100,000 per month--remains a
major national problem that must be addressed as Congress considers
improvements to our healthcare delivery system. The uninsured are three
times as likely not to receive needed medical care, at least twice as
more likely to need hospitalization for avoidable conditions like
pneumonia and diabetes, and four times more likely to rely on an
emergency room or have no regular source of care than Americans who are
privately insured.
The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act represents a major step toward
helping the uninsured obtain health coverage through the creation of a
new tax credit for the purchase of private health insurance, a concept
which enjoys bipartisan support.
This legislation directly addresses one of the main barriers which
now inhibits access to health insurance for millions of Americans:
discrimination in the tax code. Most Americans obtain health insurance
through their place of work, and for good reason: workers receive their
employer's contribution toward health insurance completely free from
federal taxation (including payroll taxes). This is effectively a $120
billion per year federal subsidy for employer-provided health
insurance. By contrast, individuals who purchase their own health
insurance get virtually no tax relief. They must buy insurance with
after-tax dollars, forcing many to earn twice as much income before
taxes in order to purchase the same insurance. This hidden health tax
penalty effectively punishes people who try to buy their insurance
outside the workplace.
The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act would remedy this situation by
creating a parallel system for working families who do not have access
to health insurance through the workplace. Specifically, this
legislation creates a refundable tax credit of $1,000 per adult and up
to $3,000 per family (indexed for inflation), for the purchase of
private health insurance; would be available to individuals and
families who don't have access to coverage through the workplace or a
federal government program; enables individuals to use their credit to
shop for a basic plan that best suits their needs which would be
portable from job to job; and allows individuals to buy more generous
coverage with after-tax dollars. And of course the states could
supplement the credit.
This legislation complements a bipartisan consensus which is emerging
around this means for addressing the serious problem of uninsured
Americans: Instead of creating new government entitlements to medical
services, tax credits provide public financing to help uninsured
Americans buy private health insurance. Representative Dick Armey has
been a leader in this field for some time now, having introduced last
year similar legislation in the House of Representatives. And just
recently, Senators Jeffords and Breaux introduced their own version of
health insurance tax credit proposal here in the Senate. I applaud
their efforts for advancing this important public policy initiative.
A tax credit for the purchase of insurance would make it possible for
many more people to obtain insurance, thereby helping to lower the
total cost of insurance. In reducing the amount of uncompensated care
that is offset through cost shifting to private insurance plans, and in
substantially increasing the insurance base, a health insurance tax
credit will help relieve some of the spiraling costs of our health care
delivery system. It would also encourage insurance companies to write
policies geared to the size of the credit, thus offering more options
and making it possible for low income families to obtain coverage
without paying much more than the available credits.
[[Page S1996]]
It is time that we reduced the tax bias against families who do not
have access to coverage through their place of work or existing
government programs, and to encourage the creation of an effective
market for family-selected and family-owned plans, where Americans have
more choice and control over their health care dollars. The Fair Care
for the Uninsured Act would create tax fairness where currently none
exists by requiring that all Americans receive the same tax
encouragement to purchase health insurance, regardless of employment.
It is my hope that my colleagues will join me in endorsing this
approach to provide people who purchase health insurance on their own
similar tax treatment as those who have access to insurance through
their employer.
______
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Reed, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Levin, Mr. Robb, Mr.
Moynihan, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Daschle):
S. 2338. A bill to enhance the enforcement of gun violence laws; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
the effective national firearms objectives for responsible, commonsense
enforcement (enforce) act
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce on
behalf of myself and Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Lautenberg, Reed,
Torricelli, Levin, Robb, Moynihan, Boxer, Dodd, and Mr. Daschle, the
Effective National Firearms Objectives For Responsible, Commonsense
Enforcement Act. This bill, I believe, bridges the gap between those
who reflexively support the gun lobby and those who strongly support
gun control.
The ENFORCE Act is the culmination of years of research into gun
tracing and gun trafficking. It is the next phase in stopping gun
violence. It is a bill and an approach to gun crime that works smarter
and works harder.
This bill works smarter by ridding us of many of the laws that have
shielded illegal gun traffickers and dirty gun dealers from
prosecution. It uses the latest in gun tracing data and ballistics
technology to make it possible for law enforcement to zero in on the
bad apples, throw the book at them, and leave the rest alone. It works
harder by finally giving ATF the street agents they need to crack down
on high crime gun dealers and to prosecute more gun crimes.
Let me outline a few provisions in this legislation. First, this bill
will fund 500 new ATF agents and inspectors to crack down on dirty gun
dealers. These new agents will target high-crime gun dealers who supply
firearms to criminals and juveniles and crack down on violent gun
criminals and illegal gun traffickers at gun shows, gun stores, and on
the streets.
ENFORCE will also give ATF the authority to investigate high crime-
gun stores. Under current law, the ATF is only allowed to conduct one
unannounced inspection of a licensed dealer a year. The bill would
allow the ATF to conduct four compliance inspections annually of
licensed firearms dealers, importers, and manufacturers.
In addition, this legislation will authorize funds to hire an
additional 1,000 local, state and federal prosecutors to expand the
Project Exile program in high gun-crime areas. In cases where federal
law enforcement authorities defer to state prosecutors, this funding
would ensure that state prosecutors have sufficient resources.
Furthermore, ENFORCE authorizes funding for federal prosecutors and gun
enforcement teams to coordinate efforts with local law enforcement and
to determine where federal prosecution is warranted.
ENFORCE will also create a comprehensive ballistics DNA testing
network. The Act would triple current funding for ballistics testing
programs to support the deployment of 150 ballistics imaging units,
helping to link bullets and shell casings to the crime-guns they were
fired from.
ENFORCE will expand to 50 cities and counties the Youth Crime Gun
Interdiction Initiative (YCGII), which would dramatically increase
tracing of crime guns to find sources. Participating cities and
counties' law enforcement agencies would submit and share identifying
information about crime guns and conduct law enforcement investigations
regarding illegal youth users of firearms and illegal traffickers of
firearms to youth. The Secretary of the Treasury would provide an
annual report on the types and sources of recovered crime guns and the
number of investigations associated with YCGII.
The bill would also fund $10 million for smart gun technology
research and development. New state-of-the-art innovations could limit
a gun's use to its owner or other authorized users--and could therefore
prevent accidental shooting deaths of children, detect gun theft, and
stop criminals from seizing and using the guns of police officers
against them.
ENFORCE is a comprehensive package of measures that will strengthen
the enforcement of existing gun laws and target high crime-gun dealers
to reduce gun violence and to keep firearms out of the hands of
children and criminals. The gun lobby has been calling for more
enforcement. This is as tough and effective an enforcement bill as ever
drafted. Gun rights and gun control supporters ought to step up to the
plate and pass it.
____________________