[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.

                          ____________________