[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 47 (Thursday, April 13, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2729-S2771]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Warner, 
        and Mr. Moynihan):
  S. 2416. A bill to designate the Federal building located at 2201 C 
Street, Northwest, in the District of Columbia, which serves as 
headquarters for the Department of State, as the ``Harry S. Truman 
Federal Building''; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


  legislation to rename the state department after president harry s. 
                                 truman

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is my great privilege to introduce a 
bill today, along with Senators Bond, Warner, DeWine, and Moynihan, 
that will name the State Department's Headquarters in Washington, D.C., 
the ``Harry S. Truman Federal Building.'' I truly appreciate the 
support of these distinguished colleagues and Secretary Albright to see 
this idea become a reality.
  Born in Lamar, Missouri, Harry S. Truman was a farmer, a national 
guardsman, a World War I veteran, a local postmaster, a road overseer, 
and a small business owner before turning to politics. Through these 
experiences, he gained the courage, honesty, and dedication to freedom 
required of a greater leader. Truman went on to become one of the most 
influential Presidents of the modern era. His leadership and character, 
especially in the area of foreign policy, have earned him well-deserved 
praise and respect throughout the world.
  He established the Marshall Plan--creating a politically and 
economically stable Western Europe. President Truman was instrumental 
in creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which kept Soviet 
aggression at bay in Western Europe. He worked to contain the further 
spread of communism in Berlin, Greece, Turkey, and Korea. Clearly, 
President Truman was the architect of the strategy that won the Cold 
War and is a prime reason the United States is currently the world's 
sole superpower.
  Mr. President, the State Department should be named after a true 
leader in foreign policy--and President Harry S. Truman is the clear 
choice. And through this choice, I hope the United States will continue 
President Truman's principled foreign policy as seen in his 1949 
Presidential Inaugural Address:

       Events have brought our American democracy to new influence 
     and new responsibilities. They will test our courage, our 
     devotion to duty, and our concept of liberty. But I say to 
     all men, what we have achieved in liberty, we will surpass in 
     greater liberty. Steadfast in our faith in the Almighty, we 
     will advance toward a world where man's freedom is secure. To 
     that end we will devote our strength, our resources, and our 
     firmness of resolve. With God's help, the future of mankind 
     will be assured in a world of justice, harmony, and peace.

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to 
join my colleagues--Senators Ashcroft, Warner, Bond, and DeWine--in 
this effort to name the State Department building after our 33rd 
President, Harry S. Truman. It could be named for none other.
  Harry S. Truman was, perhaps, the most unlikely of the Presidents. A 
failed haberdasher, as he would say, without a college degree. It seems 
somewhat paradoxical that this common man, who modeled himself along 
the lines of the fabled Cincinnatus--returning to the field after 
rising to meet his country's needs--would leave so much behind.
  Put simply, President Truman's foreign affairs accomplishments saved 
the world from the chaos that followed the destruction of Europe in the 
Second World War, and enabled the ultimate defeat of totalitarianism. 
To list a few: the Berlin Airlift, the Marshall Plan, aid to Greece and 
Turkey, NATO, and the establishment of the United Nations--the vision 
of his only rival President Woodrow Wilson.
  His greatness was not readily accepted while he served, or shortly 
thereafter. But over time, Harry S. Truman has been reevaluated through 
such scholarly biographies as those by David McCullough and Alonzo L. 
Hamby. This son of Independence, Missouri, would surely have rejected 
the high praise that his name now generates, but he would certainly 
concur in the appreciation of the enduring success of the policies and 
institutions he created. McCullough's ``Truman'' contains this 
reflection:

       I suppose that history will remember my term in office as 
     the years when the Cold War began to overshadow our lives.
       I have had hardly a day in office that has not been 
     dominated by this all-embracing struggle. . . . And always in 
     the background there has been the atomic bomb. But when 
     history says that my term of office saw the beginning of the 
     Cold War, it will also say that in those eight years we have 
     set the course that can win it. . . .

  Mr. President, few could dispute those sentiments.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Smith of New Hampshire):
  S. 2417. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
increase funding for State nonpoint source pollution control programs, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


            Water Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000

  Mr. CRAPO. I am pleased to introduce today, with my colleague Senator 
Smith of New Hampshire and Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, the ``Water 
Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000'' in response to a fast 
track rulemaking process undertaken by the Environmental Protection 
Agency with respect to the total maximum daily load, or TMDL, and 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, NPDES, permit programs 
under the Clean Water Act. The concerns over this rule are far too 
great and EPA is moving far too quickly for Congress to stand aside and 
allow this regulation to move ahead. My disagreement with the proposed 
rule is not its basic objective, which is aimed at cleaning up our 
Nation's waters--but the hurried approach EPA has elected to take, and 
their refusal to address the very numerous, very real concerns of 
states, cities, and stakeholders.
  Huge strides have been made in cleaning up our nation's waters since 
the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, particularly in the area of 
point source pollutants. But clearly, our work is not finished in 
trying to make our lakes, rivers and streams ``fishable and 
swimmable.'' More must be done to improve water quality, and more must 
especially be done to provide additional resources to address nonpoint 
source pollution, which, so far, has not received anywhere near the 
kind of funding that has been focused on discharges from point sources.
  In the past month and a half, we have held two hearings on the 
Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule with respect to total 
maximum daily loads and the NPDES permit programs. The same subject has 
been examined in four other Congressional hearings by three separate 
committees. What we have collectively learned in these hearings about 
EPA's proposed rule is nothing short of alarming. States have responded 
with universal concern to this proposed rule that saddles them with 
enormous regulatory burdens and exorbitant costs in carrying out their 
water quality management programs. Not only is this proposed onerous 
and costly to implement, but States have testified that it is not 
likely to improve water quality, and, in fact, may have a detrimental 
effect on States with existing programs that have proven to be 
successful.
  We would prefer not to be introducing this bill today. We have been 
holding hearings. I have been communicating with EPA--as have dozens of 
other Members of Congress expressing their grave concern with the 
proposed rule. We would prefer that Congress be working through these 
very important and challenging issues in collaboration with EPA. But 
holding hearings and attempting to work with EPA to resolve issues of 
concern, or urging them to take a more thoughtful, even-handed approach 
is no longer a reasonable course of action when the EPA steadfastly 
continues to insist on fast tracking a rule that has been the subject 
of such widespread concern and criticism.

[[Page S2730]]

  When EPA issued this proposed regulation last August, we were all 
surprised at the boldness of the agency to publish the rule:
  During the Congressional recess; and
  Provide only a 60-day comment period on such as massive and complex 
rulemaking.
  Not only did the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee request an extension of the comment period, but 
Congress was actually forced to enact legislation to compel EPA to 
listen. The EPA was forced to extend its comment period. EPA received 
more than 30,000 public comments on the proposed rule, and, as I said 
earlier, this rule has been the subject of six Congressional hearings.
  To date, I do not see any evidence that EPA is listening. As recently 
as last week, EPA communicated that it had negotiated a 60-day OMB 
review--what is usually at least a 90-day review on major rulemaking 
efforts--and that it intends to finalize the rule by June 30.
  The intransigence of the EPA is both unexplainable and unacceptable. 
If EPA is serious about ramming this regulation through by June 30, it 
is our intention to send them a loud message--Congress insists instead 
that they take a deep breath with respect to this rule.
  The bill Senator Smith and I are introducing today--the Water 
Pollution Program Enhancements Act--takes important steps toward 
achieving additional reductions in water pollution now, and providing 
the science necessary for better implementation of the TMDL program in 
the future.
  In the hearings I held, witnesses raised three main concerns with 
respect to the proposed rule. They cited:
  States' lack of reliable data for developing their 303(d) list of 
impaired waters;
  The scarce public resources available for addressing nonpoint 
pollution in particular; and
  EPA's overreach of its statutory authority under the Clean Water Act 
in controlling water quality management programs administered by 
States.

  This bill addresses those three issues without amending current law 
or regulation.
  The Water Pollution Program Enhancement Act authorizes significantly 
increased funding for sections 106 and 319 under the Clean Water Act. 
Funding under section 106 would be made available to the States and 
specifically directed to:
  Collect reliable monitoring data;
  Improve their lists of impaired waters;
  Prepare TMDLs; and
  Develop watershed management strategies.
  Of the $500 million available for implementation of section 319, $200 
million is required to be made available by the States for grants to 
private landowners to carry out projects that will improve water 
quality. These funds are specifically being made available to farmers, 
ranches, family forestland managers and others, to conduct activities 
on their lands that contribute to cleaning up rivers, lakes and 
streams.
  These significant increases in funding will achieve on-the-ground 
results and have a very real effect in improving our nation's water 
quality.
  Second, the bill directs the Environmental Protection Agency to 
contract with the National Academy of Sciences to prepare a report on:
  The quality of the science used to develop and implement TMDLs;
  The costs associated with implementing TMDLs; and
  The availability of alternative programs or mechanisms to reduce the 
discharge of pollutants from point sources and nonpoint source 
pollution.
  If there is one message I have heard loud and clear, it is that we 
lack basic and necessary data about TMDLs and how to implement the TMDL 
program that achieves the goal of improving water quality, provides 
States flexibility in administering their programs, and is cost 
effective. It is irresponsible of EPA to push ahead in finalizing this 
regulation when we do not have the answers to such basic questions 
about this program.
  Third, the bill provides for innovation and collaboration by 
establishing a pilot program in which five states are selected to 
implement a three-year program that examines alternative strategies and 
incentives to reduce the discharge of pollutants and TMDLs. This pilot 
program will provide us with valuable information about how we might 
think outside the box to solve our water quality problems.
  Finally, this legislation requires EPA to postpone its rulemaking and 
review the National Academy of Sciences study before publishing its 
final rule on the TMDL program. Despite EPA's assertions to the 
contrary, we know that the proposed rule would have enormous 
implications for States, cities and stakeholders. It is absolutely 
critical that we know more about the science of TMDLs before finalizing 
this rule, and EPA has given Congress no other choice but to compel 
them to do so. Congress has an obligation to intercede and resolve 
these issues crucial to the health of our people and our environment.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in cleaning up our nation's waters 
through the reasonable and balanced provisions included in the Water 
Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce 
today with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Mike Crapo, the ``Water 
Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000.'' I believe this bill will 
significantly improve water quality and, over the long term, reform the 
way the Environmental Protection Agency and the States implement the 
Total Maximum Daily Load, TMDL, program for impaired waters.
  I emphasize at the outset that I strongly support the goals of the 
Clean Water Act. I believe all Americans should be able to enjoy clean 
water to drink, and that our rivers and lakes should be ``fishable'' 
and ``swimmable.'' And we have made substantial progress over the past 
25 years since the Clean Water Act was enacted in cleaning up our 
nations rivers, lakes and streams. According to EPA, 60-70 percent of 
our nation's waters are now safe for fishing and swimming. Certainly, 
there's more work to be done. How we control runoff from agricultural 
and urban areas, and forests--so-called nonpoint source pollution--is 
our challenge for the future.
  I also support the original concept underlying the TMDL program of 
helping ensure that water quality standards are met on all of our 
nation's rivers and streams and lakes. However, I believe that there 
may be other tools to help us achieve those laudable goals; TMDLs are 
not the only answer. We should be looking to the States for 
alternative, innovative solutions, particularly in the area of 
controlling nonpoint source pollution. And I believe that if we look, 
we will find that the States have better, more cost effective solutions 
to improving water quality. Is there a role for the Federal Government 
in addressing nonpoint source pollution? Absolutely. The Federal 
Government--EPA--should work in partnership with States and the private 
sector to achieve our shared goal of fishable and swimmable water.
  EPA's approach to solving the nation's remaining water quality 
issues, however, continues to be based on more ``top-down'' regulations 
from Washington, D.C.; more confrontration, instead of collaboration; 
and more interference with State programs. We are taking the step of 
introducing this legislation today because EPA has made it clear that 
it plans to expedite the process for finalizing two controversial rules 
that it proposed last August that would make a number of significant 
changes to the existing programs to control the discharge of pollutants 
and to improve water quality. The first rule would significantly expand 
the requirements for establishing the total amount of pollutants that 
can be discharged to a waterbody--so-called ``total maximum daily 
loads.'' The second rule would expand EPA's authority to revoke or 
reissue state-issued permits under the Clean Water Act to implement the 
new TMDL requirements. The combined effect of these rules would be to 
dramatically expand EPA's authority over issues that have traditionally 
been within the jurisdiction of the States, such as farming, ranching 
and logging operations, and additionally to give EPA a potential new 
role in local land management use decisions.
  I have serious concerns about the substance of these rules. But I am 
also

[[Page S2731]]

deeply troubled by the process that EPA has adopted here. It began last 
summer when EPA initially proposed the rules. At that time, it stated 
that it would only accept public comments on the proposed rules for 60 
days. Such a short period of time for public review was obviously 
inadequate given the length of the proposed rules and their complexity. 
Congress intervened and EPA was ultimately compelled to extend the 
comment deadline for an additional 90 days.
  Even before the comment period had closed, however, EPA indicated 
that nothing would stop it from pushing the proposed rules through the 
process as quickly as possible. Over the past month, EPA has announced 
its plans to issue final rules before the end of June in spite of the 
fact that it received over 30,000 comments in February, at least 27,000 
of which were critical of the rule, and can hardly have had an 
opportunity to give these comments serious consideration. There have 
been at least six hearings on the proposed rules in both the House and 
Senate in which serious concerns were raised about: the legality and 
practicality of the rules; the lack of reliable science underlying the 
existing TMDL program, not to mention any proposed expansion; the 
potential impact on successful State programs; the burdens that an 
expanded TMDL program would impose on individual landowners and small 
businesses; and the lack of a completed cost assessment of the proposed 
rules.
  Senator Crapo has held two hearings so far on EPA's proposed TMDL 
rules. Through that process, and in many meetings with stakeholders, I 
have heard about all of the problems with EPA's proposed rules--the 
lack of science, the overly broad scope, practical problems in 
implementing the rule, trampling of state programs, and the cost. Let 
me detail just a few of the comments that I heard.
  On the question of the science underlying the TMDL program, GAO 
recently issued a report, and provided testimony on the basis of the 
report, that States do not have the data they need to accurately assess 
the pollution problems in their waters and further, do not have the 
data they need to develop TMDLs. In his statement to Senator Crapo's 
subcommittee, Peter Guerrero noted specifically that the ``ability [of 
the States] to develop TMDLs is limited by a number of factors. . . . 
[S]hortages in funding and staff [were cited] as the major limitation 
to carrying out [the States'] responsibilities, including developing 
TMDLs. In addition, states reported that they need additional 
analytical methods and technical assistance to develop TMDLs for the 
more complex, nonpoint sources of pollution.'' He went on to state that 
only three states have the data they need to identify nonpoint sources 
of pollution, and only three States have the majority of the data they 
need to develop TMDLs for nonpoint sources. To me, this information 
from GAO sends a clear signal that TMDLs are not the answer for 
nonpoint source pollution. The science just isn't there.
  We also heard from a variety of businesses and landowners who told us 
of other substantive problems with EPA's proposed rules. For example, 
Tom Thomson, a certified Tree Farmer from my home State of New 
Hampshire and the owner of the Outstanding Northeastern Tree Farm of 
1997, testified that EPA's proposal to regulate tree farming as a point 
source and impose TMDLs would just make it harder to do the job of 
improving water quality. He explained that through aggressive, private 
and voluntary stewardship, private woodlot owners all over the country 
are doing a good job to address water quality issues related to 
forestry. Compliance rates now approach 90 percent in many of the 
States where forestry best management practices, BMPs, are in place. 
Total river and stream miles impaired due to silviculture declined 20 
percent just between 1994 and 1996. The number of miles deemed to have 
``major impairment'' from silviculture fell 83 percent. In 1996, EPA 
dropped silviculture from its list of 7 leading sources of river and 
stream impairment. That same year, silviculture contributed only 7 
percent of total stream impairment. In Tom's word's this seems to be a 
classic case of ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' In this case, it 
would seem clear that water quality issues related to forestry are 
being addressed and progress is being made through State BMP programs 
and other voluntary, non-regulatory measures undertaken by landowners.

  To his credit, EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, 
Chuck Fox, has recognized that the proposed rule caused confusion and 
does have many problems. I met with Mr. Fox last week and was pleased 
to learn from him that EPA has heard at least some of the concerns that 
were raised and is ready to make some changes to their rule. He 
indicated that in any final rule, EPA would ``drop threatened waters; 
allow more flexibility in setting priorities; drop the offset 
requirements for new pollution; and revise the approach for forest 
pollution.''
  Some of the changes may be significant and that's good news, but as 
always, ``the devil is in the details.'' I am still concerned that many 
of the major problems have not been addressed. I also wonder why, if 
EPA is willing to acknowledge that many of the concepts included in the 
proposed rule were indeed flawed, it hasn't been willing to withdraw 
the August draft and reissue a new proposed rule that reflects its 
current thoughts. Surely doing that and seeking public comment on a 
revised rule would result in a better, more informed end product. It 
would almost certainly enhance public confidence in EPA's process. 
However, EPA has consistently declined to consider this approach.
  In my opinion, EPA simply hasn't done the work that must be done to 
justify and explain the rule to the public. States and the regulated 
community deserve to have their comments and concerns considered 
seriously by EPA, as well as to have an opportunity to review and 
provide comment on the cost assessment in the context of the proposed 
rule. Now apparently, EPA may be making significant changes that will 
never have been subject to public comment. In its desire to rush to 
judgment on a final rule, EPA is effectively neutering the role of 
public participation in the rulemaking process.
  Therefore, Senator Crapo and I have drafted legislation that will 
address several of the key problems with EPA's proposed rules and, in 
addition, defer any further EPA action on the rules until the National 
Academy of Sciences has conducted a study of the scientific issues 
underlying the development and implementation of the TMDL program.
  Senator Crapo and I are taking the first step to not only address 
some of the problems raised by EPA's proposed rules, but also to 
improve water quality on the ground right now.
  Our bill will do three fundamental things. First, it significantly 
increases federal funding to $750 million for States to implement 
programs to address nonpoint source pollution, to assess the quality of 
their rivers and streams, and to collect the data they need to develop 
better TMDLs. This will represent a significant increase from current 
funding levels for Fiscal Year 2000 of $155 million for nonpoint source 
programs under section 106 and section 319 of the Clean Water Act. More 
money now will enable landowners, businesses, and States to do things 
now on the ground to improve water quality--things like putting in 
buffer strips and water retention ponds. With this approach, we won't 
have to wait 10 or 15 years for EPA to impose new regulatory 
requirements on landowners after a lengthy and onerous TMDL process.
  Second, the bill directs the National Academy of Sciences to conduct 
a study on the science used to develop TMDLs and make recommendations 
about how to improve it. The NAS will also evaluate existing State 
programs to look at what works, particularly for nonpoint sources. 
Better science will make for better TMDLs.
  Third, it includes a pilot program for EPA to compare different State 
approaches to improving water quality. TMDLs should not be the only 
tool that we rely on to meet our water quality goals; they may be 
appropriate and effective for a chemical company, but not for a farmer 
or woodlot owner. There are better solutions out there, particularly to 
deal with the problems associated with nonpoint source pollution. For 
example, States are using their own authority and incentive-based 
programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the farm bill to work 
together with farmers, ranchers,

[[Page S2732]]

loggers and their cities to substantially reduce runoff.
  The bottom line is that States, public utilities, landowners, and 
businesses now are spending billions of dollars to improve water 
quality. If we are going to ask them to spend billions more--and we 
are--Congress and EPA have a responsibility to make sure that the 
programs we create are based on good, reliable science, and make the 
best use of limited resources.
  Again, it's not a question of challenging the goals of the Clean 
Water Act; it's a question of seeking the best way to achieve them.
  The bill also includes a provision to defer the finalization of EPA's 
proposed TMDL and related permit rules. We're serious when we say that 
we want EPA to base its regulations on good science. And we're serious 
when we say that we want EPA to respect the role of the States in 
solving the problem of nonpoint source pollution. That's why the bill 
provides for the National Academy of Sciences to look into those 
issues. We believe that EPA also should welcome the NAS Study and look 
forward to the opportunity to use that Study to improve its rule. 
Therefore, the bill directs EPA to review the NAS Study and take into 
consideration the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences 
before it finalizes any new TMDL rule. We believe that in the long run, 
waiting 18 months for the NAS analysis will only improve the rule and 
increase public confidence in it.
  Mr. President, I know our critics will charge that we are undermining 
the Clean Water Act. They could not be more wrong. This legislation 
will enhance the Clean Water Act. By seeking better science and 
increasing needed Federal funding, this bill will strengthen programs 
on the ground that work--programs that improve water quality and help 
us achieve the fundamental goals of fishable and swimmable waters.
  I commend Senator Crapo for his leadership on this issue. I believe 
that in crafting this legislation, he is taking an important step in 
the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2418. A bill to prohibit commercial air tour operations over the 
Black Canyon National Park; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


 Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park Commercial Overflights Ban 
                                  Act

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would prohibit commercial tour overflight operators from flying in and 
over the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. The Black Canyon 
of the Gunnison National Park, our nation's 55th and newest national 
park is a breathtaking canyon of diverse magnitude, which is why I 
worked for over 13 years to get it dedicated as a national park.
  I cannot imagine having the many visitors who tour my home state to 
view Colorado's newest national park enjoying the sound of airplanes or 
helicopters buzzing overhead while they are trying to listen to the 
flowing river at the bottom of the canyon. Because of the deep, narrow 
nature of the canyon, rescue and recovery operations for aircraft that 
experience problems would be extremely difficult, dangerous and costly.
  My bill would amend the FAA reauthorization act of 2000 and would 
only restrict overflights on the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 
Park. I worked with my friend and colleague Senator Allard for over 
five years in support of his effort to get commercial overflights 
banned over the Rocky Mountain National Park. Similar action by 
Congress is now necessary for the Black Canyon of the Gunnison.
  I believe National Park visitors seek peacefulness when they visit a 
national park and my legislation would help provide that. We contacted 
the Superintendent of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park 
and he informed us that currently no commercial overflights are taking 
place, but there may have been flights in the past.
  My bill would amend already existing law and would not negatively 
affect the operation of emergency, military and commercial high-level 
airlines or private planes.
  The Denver Post recently published an editorial supporting 
Congressional action on the issue of aircraft noise, citing how such 
operations would create noise which would echo terribly off the walls 
of the Canyon. As a member of the National Park and Historic 
Preservation Subcommittee, I have confronted these types of issues in 
the past and know how important it is for the visitors to our national 
parks to have everlasting and fond memories when they take the time and 
effort to visit the natural wonders we are blessed with in this 
country.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Denver Post editorial and the bill 
be printed in the Record. And, I ask my colleagues to support this 
needed legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2418

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

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AIR TOUR 
                   OPERATIONS.

       Section 806 of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act 
     of 2000 is amended by inserting ``or the Black Canyon of the 
     Gunnison National Park'' after ``Rocky Mountain National 
     Park''.
                                  ____


                        Keep Planes Out of Parks

       April 10--It took five years, but the wonderful quiet over 
     Rocky Mountain National Park has been permanently preserved. 
     However, the state's congressional delegation should take 
     steps to protect other national parks in Colorado from being 
     pestered by the constant drone of low-flying planes and the 
     thunderous whapping of helicopter blades. Of particular 
     concern is the Black Canyon of the Gunnison.
       Aircraft noise has become a huge problem in some national 
     parks, such as the Grand Canyon.
       So, when a helicopter tour company wanted to start scenic 
     flights over Rocky Mountain National Park in the mid-1990s, 
     Estes Park residents became alarmed.
       A temporary ban on commercial flights over the park was put 
     in place, thanks to efforts by then-U.S. Rep. Wayne Allard, a 
     Republican who at the time represented the district that 
     includes Estes Park; then-U.S. Rep. David Skaggs, a Democrat 
     who at the time represented the district that includes 
     Boulder County, where part of the park is located; and then-
     U.S. Transportation Secretary Federico Pena, a former Denver 
     mayor.
       But the ban wasn't really a done deal until this week. 
     Allard, now a U.S. senator, amended the Federal Aviation 
     Administration's authorization bill to include a permanent 
     ban on aircraft tours over Rocky Mountain National Park. U.S. 
     Rep. Bob Schaffer, another Republican who now represents 
     Colorado's Fourth Congressional District, co-sponsored a 
     similar amendment on the House side.
       Unfortunately, their work may not yet be finished. In the 
     last several months, some outdoor recreation groups have 
     raised worries that commercial flights could become a problem 
     over the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. That 
     prospect could make it impossible for visitors to enjoy 
     standing on the rim and listening to the Gunnison River roar 
     thousands of feet below. Aircraft noise would echo terribly 
     off the rock walls, and the narrow canyon could present 
     safety problems.
       The use of commercial aircraft is justifiable in a few 
     national parks. In Alaska, for example, airplanes are needed 
     to reach parts of Denali National Park, including the main 
     climbing route on Mount McKinley.
       But in the national parks in Colorado, commercial tour 
     flights simply aren't appropriate. The state's congressional 
     delegation should continue to work on the issue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 2419. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for 
the annual determination of the rate of the basic benefit of active 
duty educational assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


              VETERANS' HIGHER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES ACT

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans 
Higher Education Opportunities Act. I am pleased to be joined by the 
distinguished Senator Collins of Maine in bringing this important issue 
to the Senate floor today.
  The 1944 GI Bill of Rights is one of the most important pieces of 
legislation ever passed by Congress. No program has been more 
successful in increasing educational opportunities for our country's 
veterans while also providing a valuable incentive for the best and 
brightest to make a career out of military service. This bill has 
allowed eight million veterans to finish high school and 2.3 million 
service members to attend college.

[[Page S2733]]

  Unfortunately, without this update the current GI Bill can no longer 
deliver these results and fails in its promise to recruits and service 
members. The legislation that Senator Collins and I are introducing 
today will take an important first step in modernizing the GI Bill.
  Over 96% of recruits currently sign up for the Montgomery GI Bill and 
pay $1,200 out of their first year's pay to guarantee eligibility. But 
only one-half of these military personnel use any of the current 
Montgomery GI Bill benefits. This is evidence that the current GI Bill 
simply does not meet their needs.
  GI Bill benefits have not kept pace with increased costs of 
education. During the 1995-96 school year, the basic benefit paid under 
the Montgomery GI Bill offset only 36% of average total education 
costs.
  There is wide consensus among national higher education and veterans 
associations that at a minimum, the GI Bill should pay the costs of 
attending the average four-year public institution as a commuter 
student. The current Montgomery GI Bill benefit pays only 55% of that 
cost.
  My legislation creates that benchmark by indexing the GI Bill to the 
costs of attending the average four-year public institution as a 
commuter student. For example, those costs for the 1999-2000 academic 
year were $8,774. The Veterans Higher Education Opportunities Act would 
thereby require 36 monthly stipends of $975 for a total GI Bill benefit 
of $35,100. This benchmark cost will be updated annually by the College 
Board in order for the GI Bill to keep pace.
  I am pleased that my legislation has the bipartisan support of 
Senator Collins and the overwhelming support of the Partnership for 
Veterans' Education. This organization includes over 45 veterans groups 
and higher education organizations including the VFW, the American 
Council on Education, the Non Commissioned Officers Association, the 
National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, and 
The Retired Enlisted Association.
  Several proposals have been introduced in the House that would 
address the shortfalls of the current GI Bill, and I look forward to 
working with members of the House and my colleagues in the Senate on 
this important issue.
  As the parent of a son who served as a peacekeeper in Bosnia and who 
is currently deployed in Kosovo, these military ``quality of life'' 
challenges are particularly apparent to me. Making the GI Bill pay for 
viable educational opportunity makes as much sense today as it did 
following World War II. The very modest cost of improving the GI Bill 
will result in net gains to our military and our society.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2419

       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 ``Veterans' Higher Education 
     Opportunities Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. ANNUAL DETERMINATION OF BASIC BENEFIT OF ACTIVE DUTY 
                   EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE MONTGOMERY GI 
                   BILL.

       (a) Basic Benefit.--Section 3015 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``of $528 (as 
     increased from time to time under subsection (g))'' and 
     inserting ``equal to the average monthly costs of tuition and 
     expenses for commuter students at public institutions of 
     higher education that award baccalaureate degrees (as 
     determined under subsection (g))''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``of $429 (as 
     increased from time to time under subsection (g))'' and 
     inserting ``equal to 75 percent of the average monthly costs 
     of tuition and expenses for commuter students at public 
     institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate 
     degrees (as determined under subsection (g))''.
       (b) Determination of Average Monthly Costs.--Subsection (g) 
     of that section is amended to read as follows:
       ``(g)(1) Not later than September 30 each year, the 
     Secretary shall determine the average monthly costs of 
     tuition and expenses for commuter students at public 
     institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate 
     degrees for purposes of subsections (a)(1) and (b)(1) for the 
     succeeding fiscal year. The Secretary shall determine such 
     costs utilizing information obtained from the College Board 
     or information provided annually by the College Board in its 
     annual survey of institutions of higher education.
       ``(2) In determining the costs of tuition and expenses 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall take into account 
     the following:
       ``(A) Tuition and fees.
       ``(B) The cost of books and supplies.
       ``(C) The cost of board.
       ``(D) Transportation costs.
       ``(E) Other nonfixed educational expenses.
       ``(3) A determination made under paragraph (1) in a year 
     shall take effect on October 1 of that year and apply with 
     respect to basic educational assistance allowances payable 
     under this section for the fiscal year beginning in that 
     year.
       ``(4) Not later than September 30 each year, the Secretary 
     shall publish in the Federal Register the average monthly 
     costs of tuition and expenses as determined under paragraph 
     (1) in that year.
       ``(5) For purposes of this section, the term `institution 
     of higher education' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1001).''.
       (c) Stylistic Amendment.--Subsection (b) of that section is 
     further amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by 
     striking ``as provided in the succeeding subsections of this 
     section'' and inserting ``as otherwise provided in this 
     section''.
       (d) Effective Date.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), the amendments made by this section shall take effect on 
     October 1, 2000.
       (2) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall make the 
     determination required by subsection (g) of section 3015 of 
     title 38, United States Code (as amended by subsection (b) of 
     this section), and such determination shall go into effect, 
     for fiscal year 2001.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my friend and 
colleague, Senator Johnson, in introducing the Veterans' Higher 
Education Opportunities Act of 2000. This legislation will provide our 
veterans with expanded educational opportunities at a reasonable cost. 
Endorsed by the 47-member Partnership for Veterans Education, our 
legislation provides a new model for today's GI bill that is logical, 
fair, and worthy of a nation that values both higher education and our 
veterans.
  The original GI bill was enacted in 1944. As a result of this 
initiative, 7.8 million World War II veterans were able to take 
advantage of postservice education and training opportunities, 
including more than 2 million veterans who went on to college. My own 
father was among those veterans who served bravely in World War II and 
then came back home to resume his education with assistance from the GI 
bill.
  Since that time, various incarnations of the G.I. Bill have continued 
to assist millions of veterans in taking advantage of the educational 
opportunities they put on hold in order to serve their country. New 
laws were enacted to provide educational assistance to those who served 
in Korea and Vietnam, as well as to those who served during the period 
in-between. Since the change to an all-volunteer service, additional 
adjustments to these programs were made, leading up to the enactment of 
the Montgomery G.I. Bill in 1985.
  The value of the educational benefit assistance provided by the 
Montgomery G.I. Bill, however, has greatly eroded over time due to 
inflation and the escalating cost of higher education. Military 
recruiters indicate that the program's benefits no longer serve as a 
strong incentive to join the military; nor do they serve as a retention 
tool valuable enough to persuade men and women to stay in the military 
and defer the full or part-time pursuit of their higher education until 
a later date. Perhaps most important, the program is losing its value 
as an instrument for readjustment into civilian life after military 
service.
  This point really hit home for me when I recently met with 
representatives of the Maine State Approving Agency (SAA) for Veterans 
Education Programs. They told me of the ever increasing difficulties 
that service members are having in using the G.I. Bill's benefits for 
education and training.
  For example, the Maine representatives told me that the majority of 
today's veterans are married and have children. Yet, the Montgomery 
G.I. Bill often does not cover the cost of tuition to attend a public 
institution, let alone the other costs associated with the pursuit of 
higher education and those required to help support a family.
  In fact, in constant dollars, with one exception, the current G.I. 
Bill provides the lowest level of assistance ever to those who served 
in the defense

[[Page S2734]]

of our country. The basic benefit program of the Vietnam Era G.I. Bill 
provided $493 per month in 1981 to a veteran with a spouse and two 
children. Twenty years later, a veteran in identical circumstances 
receives only $43 more, a mere 8% increase over a time period when 
inflation has nearly doubled, and a dollar buys only half of what it 
once purchased.
  To address these problems, we are offering a modern version of the 
Montgomery G. I. Bill. This new model establishes a sensible, 
easily understood benchmark for G.I. Bill benefits. The benchmark sets 
G.I. Bill benefits at ``the average monthly costs of tuition and 
expenses for commuter students at public institutions of higher 
education that award baccalaureate degrees.'' This commonsense 
provision would serve as the foundation upon which future education 
stipends for all veterans would be based and would set benefits at a 
level sufficient to provide veterans the education promised to them at 
recruitment.

  The current G.I. Bill now provides nine monthly $536 stipends per 
year for four years. The total benefit is $19,296. Under the new 
benchmark established by this legislation, the monthly stipend for the 
this academic year would be $975, producing a new total benefit of 
$35,100 for the four academic years.
  Mr. President, today's G.I. Bill is woefully under-funded and does 
not provide the financial support necessary for our veterans to meet 
their educational goals. The legislation that we are proposing would 
fulfill the promise made to our nation's veterans, help with recruiting 
and retention of men and women in our military, and reflect current 
costs of higher education. Now is the time to enact these modest 
improvements to the basic benefit program of the Montgomery G.I. Bill.
  I urge all members of the Senate to join Senator Johnson and myself 
in support of the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Collins, and Mr. 
        Cleland):
  S. 2420. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for 
the establishment of a program under which long-term care insurance is 
made available to Federal employees, members of the uniformed services, 
and civilian and military retirees, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                      long-term care security act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2420

       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 ``Long-Term Care Security 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE.

       (a) In General.--Subpart G of part III of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

                 ``CHAPTER 90--LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE

``Sec.
``9001. Definitions.
``9002. Availability of insurance.
``9003. Contracting authority.
``9004. Financing.
``9005. Preemption.
``9006. Studies, reports, and audits.
``9007. Jurisdiction of courts.
``9008. Administrative functions.
``9009. Cost accounting standards.

     ``Sec. 9001. Definitions

       For purposes of this chapter:
       ``(1) Employee.--The term `employee' means--
       ``(A) an employee as defined by section 8901(1); and
       ``(B) an individual described in section 2105(e);
     but does not include an individual employed by the government 
     of the District of Columbia.
       ``(2) Annuitant.--The term `annuitant' has the meaning such 
     term would have under paragraph (3) of section 8901 if, for 
     purposes of such paragraph, the term `employee' were 
     considered to have the meaning given to it under paragraph 
     (1) of this subsection.
       ``(3) Member of the uniformed services.--The term `member 
     of the uniformed services' means a member of the uniformed 
     services, other than a retired member of the uniformed 
     services.
       ``(4) Retired member of the uniformed services.--The term 
     `retired member of the uniformed services' means a member or 
     former member of the uniformed services entitled to retired 
     or retainer pay.
       ``(5) Qualified relative.--The term `qualified relative' 
     means each of the following:
       ``(A) The spouse of an individual described in paragraph 
     (1), (2), (3), or (4).
       ``(B) A parent, stepparent, or parent-in-law of an 
     individual described in paragraph (1) or (3).
       ``(C) A child (including an adopted child, a stepchild, or, 
     to the extent the Office of Personnel Management by 
     regulation provides, a foster child) of an individual 
     described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4), if such child 
     is at least 18 years of age.
       ``(D) An individual having such other relationship to an 
     individual described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) as 
     the Office may by regulation prescribe.
       ``(6) Eligible individual.--The term `eligible individual' 
     refers to an individual described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), 
     (4), or (5).
       ``(7) Qualified carrier.--The term `qualified carrier' 
     means an insurance company (or consortium of insurance 
     companies) that is licensed to issue long-term care insurance 
     in all States, taking any subsidiaries of such a company into 
     account (and, in the case of a consortium, considering the 
     member companies and any subsidiaries thereof, collectively).
       ``(8) State.--The term `State' includes the District of 
     Columbia.
       ``(9) Qualified long-term care insurance contract.--The 
     term `qualified long-term care insurance contract' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 7702B of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(10) Appropriate secretary.--The term `appropriate 
     Secretary' means--
       ``(A) except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the 
     Secretary of Defense;
       ``(B) with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not 
     operating as a service of the Navy, the Secretary of 
     Transportation;
       ``(C) with respect to the commissioned corps of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the 
     Secretary of Commerce; and
       ``(D) with respect to the commissioned corps of the Public 
     Health Service, the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

     ``Sec. 9002. Availability of insurance

       ``(a) In General.--The Office of Personnel Management shall 
     establish and, in consultation with the appropriate 
     Secretaries, administer a program through which an individual 
     described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 
     9001 may obtain long-term care insurance coverage under this 
     chapter for such individual.
       ``(b) General Requirements.--Long-term care insurance may 
     not be offered under this chapter unless--
       ``(1) the only coverage provided is under qualified long-
     term care insurance contracts; and
       ``(2) each insurance contract under which any such coverage 
     is provided is issued by a qualified carrier.
       ``(c) Documentation Requirement.--As a condition for 
     obtaining long-term care insurance coverage under this 
     chapter based on one's status as a qualified relative, an 
     applicant shall provide documentation to demonstrate the 
     relationship, as prescribed by the Office.
       ``(d) Underwriting Standards.--
       ``(1) Disqualifying condition.--Nothing in this chapter 
     shall be considered to require that long-term care insurance 
     coverage be made available in the case of any individual who 
     would be eligible for benefits immediately.
       ``(2) Spousal parity.--For the purpose of underwriting 
     standards, a spouse of an individual described in paragraph 
     (1), (2), (3), or (4) of section 9001 shall, as nearly as 
     practicable, be treated like that individual.
       ``(3) Guaranteed issue.--Nothing in this chapter shall be 
     considered to require that long-term care insurance coverage 
     be guaranteed to an eligible individual.
       ``(4) Requirement that contract be fully insured.--In 
     addition to the requirements otherwise applicable under 
     section 9001(9), in order to be considered a qualified long-
     term care insurance contract for purposes of this chapter, a 
     contract must be fully insured, whether through reinsurance 
     with other companies or otherwise.
       ``(5) Higher standards allowable.--Nothing in this chapter 
     shall, in the case of an individual applying for long-term 
     care insurance coverage under this chapter after the 
     expiration of such individual's first opportunity to enroll, 
     preclude the application of underwriting standards more 
     stringent than those that would have applied if that 
     opportunity had not yet expired.
       ``(e) Guaranteed Renewability.--The benefits and coverage 
     made available to eligible individuals under any insurance 
     contract under this chapter shall be guaranteed renewable (as 
     defined by section 7A(2) of the model regulations described 
     in section 7702B(g)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), 
     including the right to have insurance remain in effect so 
     long as premiums continue to be timely made. However, the 
     authority to revise premiums under this chapter shall be 
     available only on a class basis and only to the extent 
     otherwise allowable under section 9003(b).

     ``Sec. 9003. Contracting authority

       ``(a) In General.--The Office of Personnel Management 
     shall, without regard to section 5 of title 41 or any other 
     statute requiring competitive bidding, contract with 1 or 
     more qualified carriers for a policy or policies of long-term 
     care insurance. The Office shall ensure that each resulting 
     contract (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as a 
     `master

[[Page S2735]]

     contract') is awarded on the basis of contractor 
     qualifications, price, and reasonable competition.
       ``(b) Terms and Conditions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each master contract under this chapter 
     shall contain--
       ``(A) a detailed statement of the benefits offered 
     (including any maximums, limitations, exclusions, and other 
     definitions of benefits);
       ``(B) the premiums charged (including any limitations or 
     other conditions on their subsequent adjustment);
       ``(C) the terms of the enrollment period; and
       ``(D) such other terms and conditions as may be mutually 
     agreed to by the Office and the carrier involved, consistent 
     with the requirements of this chapter.
       ``(2) Premiums.--Premiums charged under each master 
     contract entered into under this section shall reasonably and 
     equitably reflect the cost of the benefits provided, as 
     determined by the Office. The premiums shall not be adjusted 
     during the term of the contract unless mutually agreed to by 
     the Office and the carrier.
       ``(3) Nonrenewability.--Master contracts under this chapter 
     may not be made automatically renewable.
       ``(c) Payment of Required Benefits; Dispute Resolution.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each master contract under this chapter 
     shall require the carrier to agree--
       ``(A) to provide payments or benefits to an eligible 
     individual if such individual is entitled thereto under the 
     terms of the contract; and
       ``(B) with respect to disputes regarding claims for 
     payments or benefits under the terms of the contract--
       ``(i) to establish internal procedures designed to 
     expeditiously resolve such disputes; and
       ``(ii) to establish, for disputes not resolved through 
     procedures under clause (i), procedures for 1 or more 
     alternative means of dispute resolution involving independent 
     third-party review under appropriate circumstances by 
     entities mutually acceptable to the Office and the carrier.
       ``(2) Eligibility.--A carrier's determination as to whether 
     or not a particular individual is eligible to obtain long-
     term care insurance coverage under this chapter shall be 
     subject to review only to the extent and in the manner 
     provided in the applicable master contract.
       ``(3) Other claims.--For purposes of applying the Contract 
     Disputes Act of 1978 to disputes arising under this chapter 
     between a carrier and the Office--
       ``(A) the agency board having jurisdiction to decide an 
     appeal relative to such a dispute shall be such board of 
     contract appeals as the Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management shall specify in writing (after appropriate 
     arrangements, as described in section 8(c) of such Act); and
       ``(B) the district courts of the United States shall have 
     original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States 
     Court of Federal Claims, of any action described in section 
     10(a)(1) of such Act relative to such a dispute.
       ``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this chapter shall 
     be considered to grant authority for the Office or a third-
     party reviewer to change the terms of any contract under this 
     chapter.
       ``(d) Duration.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each master contract under this chapter 
     shall be for a term of 7 years, unless terminated earlier by 
     the Office in accordance with the terms of such contract. 
     However, the rights and responsibilities of the enrolled 
     individual, the insurer, and the Office (or duly designated 
     third-party administrator) under such contract shall continue 
     with respect to such individual until the termination of 
     coverage of the enrolled individual or the effective date of 
     a successor contract thereto.
       ``(2) Exception.--
       ``(A) Shorter duration.--In the case of a master contract 
     entered into before the end of the period described in 
     subparagraph (B), paragraph (1) shall be applied by 
     substituting `ending on the last day of the 7-year period 
     described in paragraph (2)(B)' for `of 7 years'.
       ``(B) Definition.--The period described in this 
     subparagraph is the 7-year period beginning on the earliest 
     date as of which any long-term care insurance coverage under 
     this chapter becomes effective.
       ``(3) Congressional notification.--No later than 180 days 
     after receiving the second report required under section 
     9006(c), the President (or his designee) shall submit to the 
     Committees on Government Reform and on Armed Services of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committees on Governmental 
     Affairs and on Armed Services of the Senate, a written 
     recommendation as to whether the program under this chapter 
     should be continued without modification, terminated, or 
     restructured. During the 180-day period following the date on 
     which the President (or his designee) submits the 
     recommendation required under the preceding sentence, the 
     Office of Personnel Management may not take any steps to 
     rebid or otherwise contract for any coverage to be available 
     at any time following the expiration of the 7-year period 
     described in paragraph (2)(B).
       ``(4) Full portability.--Each master contract under this 
     chapter shall include such provisions as may be necessary to 
     ensure that, once an individual becomes duly enrolled, long-
     term care insurance coverage obtained by such individual 
     pursuant to that enrollment shall not be terminated due to 
     any change in status (such as separation from Government 
     service or the uniformed services) or ceasing to meet the 
     requirements for being considered a qualified relative 
     (whether as a result of dissolution of marriage or 
     otherwise).

     ``Sec. 9004. Financing

       ``(a) In General.--Each eligible individual obtaining long-
     term care insurance coverage under this chapter shall be 
     responsible for 100 percent of the premiums for such 
     coverage.
       ``(b) Withholdings.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount necessary to pay the premiums 
     for enrollment may--
       ``(A) in the case of an employee, be withheld from the pay 
     of such employee;
       ``(B) in the case of an annuitant, be withheld from the 
     annuity of such annuitant;
       ``(C) in the case of a member of the uniformed services 
     described in section 9001(3), be withheld from the basic pay 
     of such member; and
       ``(D) in the case of a retired member of the uniformed 
     services described in section 9001(4), be withheld from the 
     retired pay or retainer pay payable to such member.
       ``(2) Voluntary withholdings for qualified relatives.--
     Withholdings to pay the premiums for enrollment of a 
     qualified relative may, upon election of the appropriate 
     eligible individual (described in section 9001(1)-(4)), be 
     withheld under paragraph (1) to the same extent and in the 
     same manner as if enrollment were for such individual.
       ``(c) Direct Payments.--All amounts withheld under this 
     section shall be paid directly to the carrier.
       ``(d) Other Forms of Payment.--Any enrollee who does not 
     elect to have premiums withheld under subsection (b) or whose 
     pay, annuity, or retired or retainer pay (as referred to in 
     subsection (b)(1)) is insufficient to cover the withholding 
     required for enrollment (or who is not receiving any regular 
     amounts from the Government, as referred to in subsection 
     (b)(1), from which any such withholdings may be made, and 
     whose premiums are not otherwise being provided for under 
     subsection (b)(2)) shall pay an amount equal to the full 
     amount of those charges directly to the carrier.
       ``(e) Separate Accounting Requirement.--Each carrier 
     participating under this chapter shall maintain records that 
     permit it to account for all amounts received under this 
     chapter (including investment earnings on those amounts) 
     separate and apart from all other funds.
       ``(f) Reimbursements.--
       ``(1) Reasonable initial costs.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Employees' Life Insurance Fund is 
     available, without fiscal year limitation, for reasonable 
     expenses incurred by the Office of Personnel Management in 
     administering this chapter before the start of the 7-year 
     period described in section 9003(d)(2)(B), including 
     reasonable implementation costs.
       ``(B) Reimbursement requirement.--Such Fund shall be 
     reimbursed, before the end of the first year of that 7-year 
     period, for all amounts obligated or expended under 
     subparagraph (A) (including lost investment income). Such 
     reimbursement shall be made by carriers, on a pro rata basis, 
     in accordance with appropriate provisions which shall be 
     included in master contracts under this chapter.
       ``(2) Subsequent costs.--
       ``(A) In general.--There is hereby established in the 
     Employees' Life Insurance Fund a Long-Term Care 
     Administrative Account, which shall be available to the 
     Office, without fiscal year limitation, to defray reasonable 
     expenses incurred by the Office in administering this chapter 
     after the start of the 7-year period described in section 
     9003(d)(2)(B).
       ``(B) Reimbursement requirement.--Each master contract 
     under this chapter shall include appropriate provisions under 
     which the carrier involved shall, during each year, make such 
     periodic contributions to the Long-Term Care Administrative 
     Account as necessary to ensure that the reasonable 
     anticipated expenses of the Office in administering this 
     chapter during such year (adjusted to reconcile for any 
     earlier overestimates or underestimates under this 
     subparagraph) are defrayed.

     ``Sec. 9005. Preemption

       ``The terms of any contract under this chapter which relate 
     to the nature, provision, or extent of coverage or benefits 
     (including payments with respect to benefits) shall supersede 
     and preempt any State or local law, or any regulation issued 
     thereunder, which relates to long-term care insurance or 
     contracts.

     ``Sec. 9006. Studies, reports, and audits

       ``(a) Provisions Relating to Carriers.--Each master 
     contract under this chapter shall contain provisions 
     requiring the carrier--
       ``(1) to furnish such reasonable reports as the Office of 
     Personnel Management determines to be necessary to enable it 
     to carry out its functions under this chapter; and
       ``(2) to permit the Office and representatives of the 
     General Accounting Office to examine such records of the 
     carrier as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this 
     chapter.
       ``(b) Provisions Relating to Federal Agencies.--Each 
     Federal agency shall keep such records, make such 
     certifications, and furnish the Office, the carrier, or both, 
     with

[[Page S2736]]

     such information and reports as the Office may require.
       ``(c) Reports by the General Accounting Office.--The 
     General Accounting Office shall prepare and submit to the 
     President, the Office of Personnel Management, and each House 
     of Congress, before the end of the third and fifth years 
     during which the program under this chapter is in effect, a 
     written report evaluating such program. Each such report 
     shall include an analysis of the competitiveness of the 
     program, as compared to both group and individual coverage 
     generally available to individuals in the private insurance 
     market. The Office shall cooperate with the General 
     Accounting Office to provide periodic evaluations of the 
     program.

     ``Sec. 9007. Jurisdiction of courts

       ``The district courts of the United States have original 
     jurisdiction of a civil action or claim described in 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of section 9003(c), after such 
     administrative remedies as required under such paragraph (1) 
     or (2) (as applicable) have been exhausted, but only to the 
     extent judicial review is not precluded by any dispute 
     resolution or other remedy under this chapter.

     ``Sec. 9008. Administrative functions

       ``(a) In General.--The Office of Personnel Management shall 
     prescribe regulations necessary to carry out this chapter.
       ``(b) Enrollment Periods.--The Office shall provide for 
     periodic coordinated enrollment, promotion, and education 
     efforts in consultation with the carriers.
       ``(c) Consultation.--Any regulations necessary to effect 
     the application and operation of this chapter with respect to 
     an eligible individual described in paragraph (3) or (4) of 
     section 9001, or a qualified relative thereof, shall be 
     prescribed by the Office in consultation with the appropriate 
     Secretary.
       ``(d) Informed Decisionmaking.--The Office shall ensure 
     that each eligible individual applying for long-term care 
     insurance under this chapter is furnished the information 
     necessary to enable that individual to evaluate the 
     advantages and disadvantages of obtaining long-term care 
     insurance under this chapter, including the following:
       ``(1) The principal long-term care benefits and coverage 
     available under this chapter, and how those benefits and 
     coverage compare to the range of long-term care benefits and 
     coverage otherwise generally available.
       ``(2) Representative examples of the cost of long-term 
     care, and the sufficiency of the benefits available under 
     this chapter relative to those costs. The information under 
     this paragraph shall also include--
       ``(A) the projected effect of inflation on the value of 
     those benefits; and
       ``(B) a comparison of the inflation-adjusted value of those 
     benefits to the projected future costs of long-term care.
       ``(3) Any rights individuals under this chapter may have to 
     cancel coverage, and to receive a total or partial refund of 
     premiums. The information under this paragraph shall also 
     include--
       ``(A) the projected number or percentage of individuals 
     likely to fail to maintain their coverage (determined based 
     on lapse rates experienced under similar group long-term care 
     insurance programs and, when available, this chapter); and
       ``(B)(i) a summary description of how and when premiums for 
     long-term care insurance under this chapter may be raised;
       ``(ii) the premium history during the last 10 years for 
     each qualified carrier offering long-term care insurance 
     under this chapter; and
       ``(iii) if cost increases are anticipated, the projected 
     premiums for a typical insured individual at various ages.
       ``(4) The advantages and disadvantages of long-term care 
     insurance generally, relative to other means of accumulating 
     or otherwise acquiring the assets that may be needed to meet 
     the costs of long-term care, such as through tax-qualified 
     retirement programs or other investment vehicles.

     ``Sec. 9009. Cost accounting standards

       ``The cost accounting standards issued pursuant to section 
     26(f) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 
     U.S.C. 422(f)) shall not apply with respect to a long-term 
     care insurance contract under this chapter.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for part III of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     of subpart G the following:

``90. Long-Term Care Insurance.................................9001.''.

      SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The Office of Personnel Management shall take such measures 
     as may be necessary to ensure that long-term care insurance 
     coverage under title 5, United States Code, as amended by 
     this Act, may be obtained in time to take effect not later 
     than the first day of the first applicable pay period of the 
     first fiscal year which begins after the end of the 18-month 
     period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD:
  S. 2422. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax incentives for farm relief and economic development, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


            Farm Relief and Economic Development Act of 2000

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Farm Relief 
and Economic Development Act of 2000. We have farmers who are in the 
deepest trouble they have been in in 50 years: the lowest prices in 50 
years, a series of natural disasters in many parts of the country, and 
an economic environment in which our major competitors are outgunning 
us 60 to 1 in agricultural export support, by 10 to 1 in internal 
support. The result is tens of thousands of farm families are faced 
with failure unless we respond.
  The Department of Agriculture has told us that farm income will drop 
$8 billion if we fail to act. As part of an overall response, today I 
am introducing legislation that I term the ``Farm Relief and Economic 
Development Act of 2000.'' There is no question in my mind that the 
best action Congress could take on farm policy would be to rewrite the 
farm bill. But that is unlikely to happen this year.
  There are parts of the Internal Revenue Code that create unnecessary 
problems for farmers that we can address. The essential elements of 
this bill are provisions to address farm and ranch risk management 
accounts. This proposal would allow farmers to make contributions to 
tax-deferred accounts, which would be known as farm and ranch risk 
management accounts. Those accounts would provide farmers with a 
valuable new tool for managing money in a way that best benefits each 
farmer's own operations.
  The second key element of this legislation is clarifying the self-
employment tax that applies to farm lease income. A farm landlord 
should be treated no differently than small business operators and 
other commercial landlords when it comes to cash rent income.
  As a result of a 1996 Tax Court decision, the IRS has now expanded 
the reach of the self-employment tax to include all farm landlords, 
whether or not they are active participants in the farming activity. My 
proposal would restore the pre-1996 status quo, turning back this 
unilateral action by the IRS. My proposal also includes language to 
clarify the Conservation Reserve Program payments are not subject to 
the self-employment tax. Again, we have an interpretation by the 
Internal Revenue Service that we think is badly flawed and ought to be 
reversed.
  This legislation provides capital gains relief on the sale of farm 
residences and farmland. Farm families frequently cannot take full 
advantage of the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption that we provide 
nonfarm residents. That is because the IRS separates the value of a 
farmer's house from the contiguous land. The value of the home often 
turns out to be negligible because the IRS often judges homes located 
far out in the country to have very little value. In fact, it is often 
the case it has very little in the way of market value when it is 
detached from the land that surrounds that farmstead. My proposal would 
allow the exclusion of $500,000 that we currently allow homeowners to 
be applied to the sale of a farmer's home and up to 160 acres of 
surrounding farmland.
  The next element of my legislation is Aggie bonds. Finding ways to 
encourage people to start farming is not easy. Aggie bonds are helping 
by reducing the cost of credit and stimulating investment in 
agriculture. This proposal would exclude Aggie bonds from the State 
volume cap. It would not change the loan limit, nor would it affect any 
additional limitations or qualifications imposed by the 16 States which 
participate in the program.

  My proposal provides capital gains tax relief for farmers leaving 
farming. The farmer who decides to leave under enormous financial 
pressure today often finds the IRS waiting with its hand out. When 
property is sold at auction in order to satisfy debt, the farmers will 
often realize a very significant capital gain, even though they really 
have losses because the value of the property has gone up while the 
debt may have gone up even more dramatically. This proposal would 
provide a once-in-a-lifetime capital gains exclusion for farmers who 
decide or are pressured to leave agriculture.
  Next, this proposal addresses net operating losses of farmers. My 
proposal would lengthen the carryback period for net operating losses 
for farmers to 10 years. Because of the volatility in the income of 
farmers, we believe it makes sense to allow them a net operating loss 
over an extended period.
  Next, this proposal I am offering today deals with estate valuation. 
We

[[Page S2737]]

have the special use valuation, in order to help farmers keep their 
farms intact. The definitions that trigger the recapture, 
unfortunately, are too rigid. If the farm can remain a going concern by 
renting some portion of it to other family members, I believe the 
family should be able to still enjoy the benefits of special use 
valuation. My proposal would provide that an heir could rent the family 
farm to family members for the purpose of farming without triggering 
the recapture provisions.
  Next, my proposal deals with farmer cooperatives. This proposal would 
provide cooperatives with the same declaratory relief procedures 
available to other tax-exempt entities when their tax-exempt status is 
denied.
  Finally, my proposal deals with income averaging for farmers and the 
alternative minimum tax. Because of interaction between the income 
averaging provisions of the code and the alternative minimum tax, some 
farmers who elect to take advantage of income averaging are finding 
themselves subject to alternative minimum tax. That was never intended. 
This outcome should be changed so farmers receive the full benefit of 
income averaging. This proposal would provide that a farmer who elects 
income averaging would not then face an increase in AMT liability.
  With that, Mr. President, I send the bill to the desk and ask for its 
referral. I hope colleagues will support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 2423. A bill to provide Federal Perkins Loan cancellation for 
public defenders; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


         federal perkins loan cancellation for public defenders

 Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
with Senators Feinstein, Dodd, Wellstone, and Bingaman to include full-
time public defense attorneys in the Federal Perkins Loan forgiveness 
program for law enforcement officers. This amendment will provide 
parity to public defense attorneys and uphold the goals set forth by 
the Supreme Court to equalize access to legal resources. Representative 
Tom Campbell of California will be introducing a similar bill in the 
House.
  Under section 465(a)(2)(F) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, a 
borrower with a loan made under the Federal Perkins Loan Program is 
eligible to have the loan canceled for serving full-time as a law 
enforcement officer or corrections officer in a local, State, or 
Federal law enforcement or corrections agency. While the rules 
governing borrower eligibility for law enforcement cancellation have 
been interpreted by the Department of Education to include prosecuting 
attorneys, public defenders have been excluded from the loan 
forgiveness program. This policy must be amended.
  Like prosecutors, public defense attorneys play an integral role in 
our adversarial process. This judicial process is the most effective 
means of getting at truth and rendering justice. The United States 
Supreme Court in a series of cases has recognized the importance of the 
right to counsel in implementing the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a 
fair trial and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause requiring 
counsel to be appointed for all persons accused of offenses in which 
there is a possibility of a jail term being imposed.
  Absent adequate counsel for all parties, there is a danger that the 
outcome may be determined not by who has the most convincing case but 
by who has the most resources. The Court rightly addressed this 
possible miscarriage of justice by requiring counsel to be appointed 
for the accused. Public defenders fill this Court mandated role by 
representing the interests of criminally accused indigent persons. They 
give indigent defendants sufficient resources to present an adequate 
defense, so that the public goal of truth and justice will govern the 
outcome.
  The Department of Education's interpretation of the statue to exclude 
public defenders from the loan forgiveness program undermines the goals 
set forth by the Supreme Court to equalize access to legal resources. 
It creates an obvious disparity of resources between public defenders 
and prosecutors by encouraging talented individuals to pursue public 
service as prosecutors but not as defenders. The criminal justice 
system works best when both sides are adequately represented. The 
public interest is served when indigent defendants have access to 
talented defenders. One of the ways to facilitate this goal is by 
granting loan cancellation benefits to defense attorneys.
  Moreover, public defense attorneys meet all the eligibility 
requirements of the loan forgiveness program as set forth in current 
federal regulations. They belong to publicly funded public defender 
agencies and they are sworn officers of the court whose principal 
responsibilities are unique to the criminal justice system and are 
essential in the performance of the agencies' primary mission. In 
addition, like prosecuting attorneys, public defenders are law 
enforcement officers dedicated to upholding, protecting, and enforcing 
our laws. Without public defense attorneys, the adversarial process of 
our criminal justice system could not operate.
  I urge my colleagues to join me, Senator Feinstein, Senator Dodd, 
Senator Wellstone, Senator Bingaman, and Representative Campbell in 
supporting the goal of equalized access to legal resources, as set 
forth in the Constitution and elucidated by the Supreme Court, by 
providing parity to public defenders and allowing them to join 
prosecutors in receiving loan cancellation benefits.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2423

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

     SECTION 1. FEDERAL PERKINS LOAN CANCELLATION FOR PUBLIC 
                   DEFENDERS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Department of Education has issued clarifications 
     that prosecuting attorneys are among the class of law 
     enforcement officers eligible for benefits under the Federal 
     Perkins Loan cancellation program.
       (2) Like prosecutors, public defenders also meet all the 
     eligibility requirements of the Federal Perkins Loan 
     cancellation program as set forth in Federal regulations.
       (3) Public defenders are law enforcement officers who play 
     an integral role in our Nation's adversarial legal process. 
     Public defenders fill the Supreme Court mandated role 
     requiring that counsel be appointed for the accused, by 
     representing the interests of criminally accused indigent 
     persons.
       (4) In order to encourage highly qualified attorneys to 
     serve as public defenders, public defenders should be 
     included with prosecutors among the class of law enforcement 
     officers eligible to receive benefits under the Federal 
     Perkins Loan cancellation program.
       (b) Amendment.--Section 465(a)(2)(F) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ee(a)(2)(F)) is amended 
     by inserting ``, or as a full-time public defender for 
     service to local, State, or Federal governments (directly or 
     by a contract with a private, nonprofit organization)'' after 
     ``agencies''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to--
       (1) loans made under this part, whether made before, on, or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) service as a public defender that is provided on or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to authorize the refunding of any repayment of a 
     loan.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 2429. A bill to amend the Energy Conservation and Production Act 
to make changes in the Weatherization Assistance Program for Low-Income 
Persons; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                 Weatherization Improvement Act of 2000

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Weatherization Improvement Act of 2000.
  As this past winter has demonstrated, cold temperatures and high fuel 
costs can result in severe hardship for many of our low-income 
households, particularly those with children, elderly, and disabled 
members. Preventative energy efficiency measures are vital to ensure 
that low-income consumers spend less money keeping their families warm 
on cold winter nights. It is estimated that investments in 
Weatherization can save a typical household $193 in annual gas energy 
costs. While improving energy efficiency through work such as air-

[[Page S2738]]

sealing and insulation work is an admirable goal, the Weatherization 
Assistance Program also has become an important tool in addressing the 
health and safely of our low-income families.
  The Weatherization Improvement Act of 2000 seeks to further this 
commitment. The legislation will amend the average per dwelling unit 
cost to incorporate intensive costs, such as costs of furnace or 
cooling replacements, reducing the administrative burden of tracking 
these costs separately; increase the average cost per home, beginning 
this year, to $2,500 (up from $2,032 for 1999); and eliminate the 
statutory requirement that at least 40 percent of funds be spent on 
materials. These changes are necessary to improve the effectiveness of 
the Weatherization, and are long overdue.
  Lastly, the legislation repeals the 25 percent state matching 
requirement for the Weatherization Assistance Program set to begin in 
FY2001, which was included in the FY2000 Interior Appropriations 
legislation. While many states, utilities, and private organizations 
have leveraged large amounts of money in support of the Weatherization 
Assistance Program, not every state is in the same financial situation. 
There needs to be national commitment to energy efficiency for low 
income Americans and affordable housing. This is part of that 
commitment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY:
  S. 2430. A bill to combat computer hacking through enhanced law 
enforcement and to protect the privacy and constitutional rights of 
Americans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                     Internet Security Act of 2000

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we head into the twenty-first century, 
computer-related crime is one of the greatest challenges facing law 
enforcement. Many of our critical infrastructures and our government 
depend upon the reliability and security of complex computer systems. 
We need to make sure that these essential systems are protected from 
all forms of attack. The legislation I am introducing today will help 
law enforcement investigate and prosecute those who jeopardize the 
integrity of our computer systems and the Internet.
  Whether we work in the private sector or in government, we negotiate 
daily through a variety of security checkpoints designed to protect 
ourselves from being victimized by crime or targeted by terrorists. For 
instance, congressional buildings like this one use cement pillars 
placed at entrances, photo identification cards, metal detectors, x-ray 
scanners, and security guards to protect the physical space. These 
security steps and others have become ubiquitous in the private sector 
as well.
  Yet all these physical barriers can be circumvented using the wires 
that run into every building to support the computers and computer 
networks that are the mainstay of how we communicate and do business. 
This plain fact was amply demonstrated by the recent hacker attacks on 
E-Trade, ZDNet, Datek, Yahoo, eBay, Amazon.com and other Internet 
sites. These attacks raise serious questions about Internet security--
questions that we need to answer to ensure the long-term stability of 
electronic commerce. More importantly, a well-focused and more malign 
cyber-attack on computer networks that support telecommunications, 
transportation, water supply, banking, electrical power and other 
critical infrastructure systems could wreak havoc on our national 
economy or even jeopardize our national defense. We have learned that 
even law enforcement is not immune. Just recently we learned of a 
denial of service attack successfully perpetrated against a FBI web 
site, shutting down that site for several hours.
  The cybercrime problem is growing. The reports of the CERT 
Coordination Center (formerly called the ``Computer Emergency Response 
Team''), which was established in 1988 to help the Internet community 
detect and resolve computer security incidents, provide chilling 
statistics on the vulnerabilities of the Internet and the scope of the 
problem. Over the last decade, the number of reported computer security 
incidents grew from 6 in 1988 to more than 8,000 in 1999. But that 
alone does not reveal the scope of the problem. According to CERT's 
most recent annual report, more than four million computer hosts were 
affected by the computer security incidents in 1999 alone by damaging 
computer viruses, with names like ``Melissa,'' ``Chernobyl,'' 
``ExploreZip,'' and by the other ways that remote intruders have found 
to exploit system vulnerabilities. Even before the recent headline-
grabbing ``denial-of-service'' attacks, CERT documented that such 
incidents ``grew at rate around 50% per year'' which was ``greater than 
the  rate of growth of Internet hosts.''

  CERT has tracked recent trends in severe hacking incidents on the 
Internet and made the following observations, First, hacking techniques 
are getting more sophisticated. That means law enforcement is going to 
have to get smarter too, and we need to give them the resources to do 
this. Second, hackers have ``become increasingly difficult to locate 
and identify.'' These criminals are operating in many different 
locations and are using techniques that allow them to operate in 
``nearly total obscurity.''
  We have been aware of the vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks of our 
computer networks for more than a decade. It became clear to me, when I 
chaired a series of hearings in 1988 and 1989 by the Subcommittee on 
Technology and the Law in the Senate Judiciary Committee on the subject 
of high-tech terrorism and the threat of computer viruses, that merely 
``hardening'' our physical space from potential attack would only 
prompt committed criminals and terrorists to switch tactics and use new 
technologies to reach vulnerable softer targets, such as our computer 
systems and other critical infrastructures. The government has a 
responsibility to work with those in the private sector to assess those 
vulnerabilities and defend them. That means making sure our law 
enforcement agencies have the tools they need, but also that the 
government does not stand in the way of smart technical solutions to 
defend our computer systems.
  Targeting cybercrime with up-to-date criminal laws and tougher law 
enforcement is only part of the solution. While criminal penalties may 
deter some computer criminals, these laws usually come into play too 
late, after the crime has been committed and the injury inflicted. We 
should keep in mind the adage that the best defense is a good offense. 
Americans and American firms must be encouraged to take preventive 
measures to protect their computer information and systems. Just 
recently, internet providers and companies such as Yahoo! and 
Amazon.com Inc., and computer hardware companies such a Cisco Systems 
Inc., proved successful at stemming attacks within hours thereby 
limiting losses.
  That is why, for years, I have advocated and sponsored legislation to 
encourage the widespread use of strong encryption. Encryption is an 
important tool in our arsenal to protect the security of our computer 
information and networks. The Administration made enormous progress 
earlier this year when it issued new regulations relaxing export 
controls on strong encryption. Of course, encryption technology cannot 
be the sole source of protection for our critical computer networks and 
computer-based infrastructure, but we need to make sure the government 
is encouraging--and not restraining--the use of strong encryption and 
other technical solutions to protecting our computer systems.
  Congress has responded again and again to help our law enforcement 
agencies keep up with the challenges of new crimes being executed over 
computer networks. In 1984, we passed the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 
and  its amendments, to criminalize conduct when carried out by means 
of unauthorized access to a computer. In 1986, we passed the Electronic 
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which I was proud to sponsor, to 
criminalize tampering with electronic mail systems and remote data 
processing systems and to protect the privacy of computer users. In the 
104th Congress, Senators Kyl, Grassley, and I worked together to enact 
the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act to increase 
protection under federal criminal law for both government and private 
computers, and to address an emerging problem of computer-age blackmail 
in which a criminal threatens to harm or shut down a computer system 
unless their extortion demands are met.

[[Page S2739]]

  In this Congress, I have introduced a bill with Senator DeWine, the 
Computer Crime Enforcement Act, S. 1314, to set up a $25 million grant 
program within the U.S. Department of Justice for states to tap for 
improved education, training, enforcement and prosecution of computer 
crimes. All 50 states have now enacted tough computer crime control 
laws. These state laws establish a firm groundwork for electronic 
commerce and Internet security. Unfortunately, too many state and local 
law enforcement agencies are struggling to afford the high cost of 
training and equipment necessary for effective enforcement of their 
state computer crime statutes. Our legislation, the Computer Crime 
Enforcement Act, would help state and local law enforcement join the 
fight to combat the worsening threats we face from computer crime.
  Computer crime is a problem nationwide and in Vermont. I recently 
released a survey on computer crime in Vermont. My office surveyed 54 
law enforcement agencies in Vermont--43 police departments and 11 
State's attorney offices--on their experience investigating and 
prosecuting computer crimes. The survey found that more than half of 
these Vermont law enforcement agencies encounter computer crime, with 
many police departments and state's attorney offices handling 2 to 5 
computer crimes per month.
  Despite this documented need, far too many law enforcement agencies 
in Vermont cannot afford the cost of policing against computer crimes. 
Indeed, my survey found that 98% of the responding Vermont law 
enforcement agencies do not have funds dedicated for use in computer 
crime enforcement.
  My survey also found that few law enforcement officers in Vermont are 
properly trained in investigating computer crimes and analyzing cyber-
evidence. According to my survey, 83% of responding law enforcement 
agencies in Vermont do not employ officers properly trained in computer 
crime investigative techniques. Moreover, my survey found that 52% of 
the law enforcement agencies that handle one or more computer crimes 
per month cited their lack of training as a problem encountered during 
investigations. Proper training is critical to ensuring success in the 
fight against computer crime.
  This bill will help our computer crime laws up to date as an 
important backstop and deterrent. I believe that our current computer 
crime laws can be enhanced and that the time to act is now. We should 
pass legislation designed to improve our law enforcement efforts while 
at the same time protecting the privacy rights of American citizens.
  The bill I offer today will make it more efficient for law 
enforcement to use tools that are already available--such as pen 
registers and trap and trace devices--to track down computer criminals 
expeditiously. It will ensure that law enforcement can investigate and 
prosecute hacker attacks even when perpetrators use foreign-based 
computers to facilitate their crimes. It will implement criminal 
forfeiture provisions to ensure that cybercriminals are forced to 
relinquish the tools of their trade upon conviction. It will also close 
a current loophole in our wiretap laws that prevents a law enforcement 
officer from monitoring an innocent-host computer with the consent of 
the computer's owner and without a wiretap order to track down the 
source of denial-of-service attacks. Finally, this legislation will 
assist state and local police departments in their parallel efforts to 
combat cybercrime, in recognition of the fact that this fight is not 
just at the federal level.
  The key provisions of the bill are:
  Jurisdictional and Definitional Changes to the Computer Fraud and 
Abuse Act: The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030, is 
the primary federal criminal statute prohibiting computer frauds and 
hacking. This bill would amend the statute to clarify the appropriate 
scope of federal jurisdiction. First, the bill adds a broad definition 
of ``loss'' to the definitional section. Calculation of loss is 
important both in determining whether the $5,000 jurisdictional hurdle 
in the statute is met, and, at sentencing, in calculating the 
appropriate guideline range and restitution amount.
  Second, the bill amends the definition of ``protected computer,'' to 
expressly include qualified computers even when they are physically 
located outside of the United States. This clarification will preserve 
the ability of the United States to assist in international hacking 
cases. A ``Sense of Congress'' provision specifies that federal 
jurisdiction is justified by the ``interconnected and interdependent 
nature of computers used in interstate or foreign commerce.''
  Finally, the bill expands the jurisdiction of the United States 
Secret Service to encompass investigations of all violations of 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 1030. Prior to the 1996 amendments to the Computer Fraud 
and Abuse Act, the Secret Service was authorized to investigate any and 
all violations of section 1030, pursuant to an agreement between the 
Secretary of Treasury and the Attorney General. The 1996 amendments, 
however, concentrated Secret Service jurisdiction on certain specified 
subsections of section 1030. The current amendment would return full 
jurisdiction to the Secret Service and would allow the Justice and 
Treasury Departments to decide on the appropriate work-sharing balance 
between the two.
  Elimination of Mandatory Minimum Sentence for Certain Violations of 
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: Currently, a directive to the Sentencing 
Commission requires that all violations, including misdemeanor 
violations, of  certain provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 
be punished with a term of imprisonment of at least six months. The 
bill would change this directive to the Sentencing Commission so that 
no such mandatory minimum would be required.

  Additional Criminal Forfeiture Provisions: The bill adds a criminal 
forfeiture provision to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, requiring 
forfeiture of physical property used in or to facilitate the offense as 
well as property derived from proceeds of the offense. It also 
supplements the current forfeiture provision in 18 U.S.C. 2318, which 
prohibits trafficking in, among other things, counterfeit computer 
program documentation and packaging, to require the forfeiture of 
replicators and other devices used in the production of such 
counterfeit items.
  Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices: The bill makes it easier 
for law enforcement to use these investigative techniques in the area 
of cybercrime, and institutes corresponding privacy protections. On the 
law enforcement side, the bill gives nationwide effect to pen register 
and trap and trace orders obtained by Government attorneys, thus 
obviating the need to obtain identical orders in multiple federal 
jurisdictions. It also clarifies that such devices can be used on all 
electronic communication lines, not just telephone lines. On the 
privacy side, the bill provides for greater judicial review of 
applications for pen registers and trap and trace devices and 
institutes a minimization requirement for the use of such devices. The 
bill also amends the reporting requirements for applications for such 
devices by specifying the information to be reported.
  Denial of Service Investigations: Currently, a person whose computer 
is accessed by a hacker as a means for the hacker to reach a third 
computer cannot simply consent to law enforcement monitoring of his 
computer. Instead, because this person is not technically a party to 
the communication, law enforcement needs wiretap authorization under 
Title III to conduct such monitoring. The bill will close this loophole 
by explicitly permitting such monitoring without a wiretap if prior 
consent is obtained from the person whose computer is being hacked 
through and used to send ``harmful interference to a lawfully operating 
computer system.''
  Encryption Reporting: The bill directs the Attorney General to report 
the number of wiretap orders in which encryption was encountered and 
whether such encryption precluded law enforcement from obtaining the 
plaintext of intercepted communications.
  State and Local Computer Crime Enforcement: The bill directs the 
Office of Federal Programs to make grants to assist State and local law 
enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of computer crime.
  Legislation must be balanced to protect our privacy and other 
constitutional rights. I am a strong proponent

[[Page S2740]]

of the Internet and a defender of our constitutional rights to speak 
freely and to keep private our confidential affairs from either private 
sector snoops or unreasonable government searches. These principles can 
be respected at the same time we hold accountable those malicious 
mischief makers and digital graffiti sprayers, who use computers to 
damage or destroy the property of others. I have seen Congress react 
reflexively in the past to address concerns over anti-social behavior 
on the Internet with legislative proposals that would do more harm than 
good. A good example of this is the Communications Decency Act, which 
the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional. We must make sure that our 
legislative efforts are precisely targeted on stopping destructive acts 
and that we avoid scattershot proposals that would threaten, rather 
than foster, electronic commerce and sacrifice, rather than promote, 
our constitutional rights.
  Technology has ushered in a new age filled with unlimited potential 
for commerce and communications. But the Internet age has also ushered 
in new challenges for federal, state and local law enforcement 
officials. Congress and the Administration need to work together to 
meet these new challenges while preserving the benefits of our new era. 
The legislation I offer today is a step in that direction.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2430

       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 ``Internet Security Act of 
     2000''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT.

       Section 1030 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (5)--
       (i) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(A)'' and redesignating 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) as clauses (ii) and (iii), 
     respectively;
       (ii) in subparagraph (A)(iii), as redesignated, by adding 
     ``and'' at the end; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) the conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) 
     of subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) caused loss aggregating at least $5,000 in value 
     during a 1-year period to 1 or more individuals;
       ``(ii) modified or impaired, or potentially modified or 
     impaired, the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or 
     care of 1 or more individuals;
       ``(iii) caused physical injury to any person; or
       ``(iv) threatened public health or safety;''; and
       (B) in paragraph (6), by adding ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or an attempted 
     offense'' after ``in the case of an offense''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) forfeiture to the United States in accordance with 
     subsection (i) of the interest of the offender in--
       ``(A) any personal property used or intended to be used to 
     commit or to facilitate the commission of the offense; and
       ``(B) any property, real or personal, that constitutes or 
     that is derived from proceeds traceable to any violation of 
     this section.'';
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking ``subsections (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(3), 
     (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) of''; and
       (B) by striking ``which shall be entered into by'' and 
     inserting ``between'';
       (4) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``, including 
     computers located outside the United States'' before the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (D) in paragraph (8), by striking ``, that'' and all that 
     follows through ``; and'' and inserting a semicolon;
       (E) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (F) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) the term `loss' includes--
       ``(A) the reasonable costs to any victim of--
       ``(i) responding to the offense;
       ``(ii) conducting a damage assessment; and
       ``(iii) restoring the system and data to their condition 
     prior to the offense; and
       ``(B) any lost revenue or costs incurred by the victim as a 
     result of interruption of service.'';
       (5) in subsection (g), by striking ``Damages for violations 
     involving damage as defined in subsection (c)(8)(A)'' and 
     inserting ``losses specified in subsection (a)(5)(B)(i)''; 
     and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Provisions Governing Forfeiture.--Property subject to 
     forfeiture under this section, any seizure and disposition 
     thereof, and any administrative or judicial proceeding in 
     relation thereto, shall be governed by subsection (c) and 
     subsections (e) through (p) of section 413 of the 
     Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 
     (21 U.S.C. 853).''.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) acts that damage or attempt to damage computers used in 
     the delivery of critical infrastructure services such as 
     telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking and 
     financial services, and emergency and government services 
     pose a serious threat to public health and safety and cause 
     or have the potential to cause losses to victims that include 
     costs of responding to offenses, conducting damage 
     assessments, and restoring systems and data to their 
     condition prior to the offense, as well as lost revenue and 
     costs incurred as a result of interruptions of service; and
       (2) the Federal Government should have jurisdiction to 
     investigate acts affecting protected computers, as defined in 
     section 1030(e)(2)(B) of title 18, United States Code, as 
     amended by this Act, even if the effects of such acts occur 
     wholly outside the United States, as in such instances a 
     sufficient Federal nexus is conferred through the 
     interconnected and interdependent nature of computers used in 
     interstate or foreign commerce or communication.

     SEC. 4. MODIFICATION OF SENTENCING COMMISSION DIRECTIVE.

       Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, 
     United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission 
     shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to ensure that 
     any individual convicted of a violation of paragraph (4) or 
     (5) of section 1030(a) of title 18, United States Code, can 
     be subjected to appropriate penalties, without regard to any 
     mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.

     SEC. 5. FORFEITURE OF DEVICES USED IN COMPUTER SOFTWARE 
                   COUNTERFEITING.

       Section 2318(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by--
       (1) inserting ``(1)'' before ``When'';
       (2) inserting ``, and any replicator or other device or 
     thing used to copy or produce the computer program or other 
     item to which the counterfeit label was affixed, or was 
     intended to be affixed'' before the period; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The forfeiture of property under this section, 
     including any seizure and disposition of the property, and 
     any related judicial or administrative proceeding, shall be 
     governed by the provisions of section 413 (other than 
     subsection (d) of that section) of the Comprehensive Drug 
     Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853).''.

     SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Section 492 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``or 1720,'' and inserting ``, 1720, or 2318''.

     SEC. 7. PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES.

       Section 3123 of title 18, United States Code is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Issuance of Order.--
       ``(1) Requests from attorneys for the government.--Upon an 
     application made under section 3122(a)(1), the court may 
     enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use 
     of a pen register or a trap and trace device if the court 
     finds, based on the certification by the attorney for the 
     Government, that the information likely to be obtained by 
     such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal 
     investigation. Such order shall apply to any entity providing 
     wire or electronic communication service in the United States 
     whose assistance is necessary to effectuate the order.
       ``(2) Requests from state investigative or law enforcement 
     officers.--Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(2), 
     the court may enter an ex parte order authorizing the 
     installation and use of a pen register or a trap and trace 
     device within the jurisdiction of the court, if the court 
     finds, based on the certification by the State law 
     enforcement or investigative officer, that the information 
     likely to be obtained by such installation and use is 
     relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``authorized under 
     subsection (a)(2)'' after ``in the case of a trap and trace 
     device''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) shall direct that the use of the pen register or trap 
     and trace device be conducted in such a way as to minimize 
     the recording or decoding of any electronic or other impulses 
     that are not related to the dialing and signaling information 
     utilized in processing by the service provider upon whom the 
     order is served.''.

     SEC. 8. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND 
                   TRACE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Issuance of an Order.--Section 3123 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or other facility'' after ``line'' each 
     place that term appears;

[[Page S2741]]

       (2) by inserting ``or applied'' after ``attached'' each 
     place that term appears;
       (3) in subsection (b)(1)(C), by inserting ``or other 
     identifier'' after ``the number''; and
       (4) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``who has been 
     ordered by the court'' and inserting ``who is obligated by 
     the order''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 3127 of title 18, United States 
     Code is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) the term `pen register'--
       ``(A) means a device or process that records or decodes 
     electronic or other impulses that identify the telephone 
     numbers or electronic address dialed or otherwise transmitted 
     by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic 
     communication is transmitted and used for purposes of 
     identifying the destination or termination of such 
     communication by the service provider upon which the order is 
     served; and
       ``(B) does not include any device or process used by a 
     provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication 
     service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, 
     for communications services provided by such provider or any 
     device or process by a provider or customer of a wire 
     communication service for cost accounting or other like 
     purposes in the ordinary course of its business;''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by inserting ``or process'' after ``means a device'';
       (B) by inserting ``or other identifier'' after ``number''; 
     and
       (C) by striking ``or device'' and inserting ``or other 
     facility''.

     SEC. 9. PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE REPORTS.

       Section 3126 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting before the period at the end the following: ``, 
     which report shall include information concerning--
       ``(1) the period of interceptions authorized by the order, 
     and the number and duration of any extensions of the order;
       ``(2) the offense specified in the order or application, or 
     extension of an order;
       ``(3) the number of investigations involved;
       ``(4) the number and nature of the facilities affected; and
       ``(5) the identity, including district, of the applying 
     investigative or law enforcement agency making the 
     application and the person authorizing the order''.

     SEC. 10. ENHANCED DENIAL OF SERVICE INVESTIGATIONS.

       Section 2511(2)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c)(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a 
     person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, 
     or electronic communication, if such person is a party to the 
     communication or 1 of the parties to the communication has 
     given prior consent to such interception.
       ``(ii) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a 
     person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or 
     electronic communication, if--
       ``(I) the transmission of the wire or electronic 
     communication is causing harmful interference to a lawfully 
     operating computer system;
       ``(II) any person who is not a provider of service to the 
     public and who is authorized to use the facility from which 
     the wire or electronic communication is to be intercepted has 
     given prior consent to the interception; and
       ``(III) the interception is conducted only to the extent 
     necessary to identify the source of the harmful interference 
     described in subclause (I).''.

     SEC. 11. ENCRYPTION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 2519(2)(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``and (iv)'' and inserting ``(iv) the 
     number of orders in which encryption was encountered and 
     whether such encryption prevented law enforcement from 
     obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted 
     pursuant to such order, and (v)''.

     SEC. 12. STATE AND LOCAL COMPUTER CRIME ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the availability of amounts 
     provided in advance in appropriations Acts, the Assistant 
     Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs of the 
     Department of Justice shall make a grant to each State, which 
     shall be used by the State, in conjunction with units of 
     local government, State and local courts, other States, or 
     combinations thereof, to--
       (1) assist State and local law enforcement in enforcing 
     State and local criminal laws relating to computer crime;
       (2) assist State and local law enforcement in educating the 
     public to prevent and identify computer crime;
       (3) assist in educating and training State and local law 
     enforcement officers and prosecutors to conduct 
     investigations and forensic analyses of evidence and 
     prosecutions of computer crime;
       (4) assist State and local law enforcement officers and 
     prosecutors in acquiring computer and other equipment to 
     conduct investigations and forensic analysis of evidence of 
     computer crimes; and
       (5) facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law 
     enforcement expertise and information about the 
     investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer crimes 
     with State and local law enforcement officers and 
     prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task 
     forces.
       (b) Use of Grant Amounts.--Grants under this section may be 
     used to establish and develop programs to--
       (1) assist State and local law enforcement agencies in 
     enforcing State and local criminal laws relating to computer 
     crime;
       (2) assist State and local law enforcement agencies in 
     educating the public to prevent and identify computer crime;
       (3) educate and train State and local law enforcement 
     officers and prosecutors to conduct investigations and 
     forensic analyses of evidence and prosecutions of computer 
     crime;
       (4) assist State and local law enforcement officers and 
     prosecutors in acquiring computer and other equipment to 
     conduct investigations and forensic analysis of evidence of 
     computer crimes; and
       (5) facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law 
     enforcement expertise and information about the 
     investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer crimes 
     with State and local law enforcement officers and 
     prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task 
     forces.
       (c) Assurances.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a State shall provide assurances to the 
     Attorney General that the State--
       (1) has in effect laws that penalize computer crime, such 
     as penal laws prohibiting--
       (A) fraudulent schemes executed by means of a computer 
     system or network;
       (B) the unlawful damaging, destroying, altering, deleting, 
     removing of computer software, or data contained in a 
     computer, computer system, computer program, or computer 
     network; or
       (C) the unlawful interference with the operation of or 
     denial of access to a computer, computer program, computer 
     system, or computer network;
       (2) an assessment of the State and local resource needs, 
     including criminal justice resources being devoted to the 
     investigation and enforcement of computer crime laws; and
       (3) a plan for coordinating the programs funded under this 
     section with other federally funded technical assistant and 
     training programs, including directly funded local programs 
     such as the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program 
     (described under the heading ``Violent Crime Reduction 
     Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance'' of the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 
     105-119)).
       (d) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant received 
     under this section may not exceed 90 percent of the total 
     cost of a program or proposal funded under this section 
     unless the Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the 
     requirements of this subsection.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2000 through 2003.
       (2) Limitations.--Of the amount made available to carry out 
     this section in any fiscal year not more than 3 percent may 
     be used by the Attorney General for salaries and 
     administrative expenses.
       (3) Minimum amount.--Unless all eligible applications 
     submitted by any State or units of local government within a 
     State for a grant under this section have been funded, the 
     State, together with grantees within the State (other than 
     Indian tribes), shall be allocated in each fiscal year under 
     this section not less than 0.75 percent of the total amount 
     appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to this 
     section, except that the United States Virgin Islands, 
     American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands each 
     shall be allocated 0.25 percent.
       (f) Grants to Indian Tribes.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section, the Attorney General may use 
     amounts made available under this section to make grants to 
     Indian tribes for use in accordance with this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM:
  S. 2431. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
credit against income tax for expenses incurred in teleworking; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                       TELEWORK TAX INCENTIVE ACT

 Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce 
legislation that would help people who ``telework'' or work from home, 
to receive a tax credit. Teleworkers are people who work a few days a 
week on-line from home by using computers and other information 
technology tools. Nearly 20 million Americans telework today, and 
according to experts, 40 percent of the nation's jobs are compatible 
with telework. At one national telecommunications company, nearly 25 
percent of its workforce works from home at least one day a week. The 
company found positive results in the way of fewer days of sick leave, 
better retention, and higher productivity.
  I am introducing the Telework Tax Incentive Act to provide a $500 tax 
credit for telework. The purpose of my legislation is to provide an 
incentive to encourage more employers to consider telework for their 
employees. Telework should be a regular part of the 21st century 
workplace. The best part of

[[Page S2742]]

telework is that it improves the quality of life for all. Telework also 
reduces traffic congestion and air pollution. It reduces gas 
consumption and our dependency on foreign oil. Telework is good for 
families--working parents have flexibility to meet everyday demands. 
Telework provides people with disabilities greater job opportunities. 
Telework helps fill our nation's labor market shortage. It can also be 
a good option for retirees choosing to work part-time.
  Last fall, a task force on telework initiated by Governor James 
Gilmore of Virginia made a number of recommendations to increase and 
promote telework. One recommendation was to establish a tax credit 
toward the purchase and installation of electronic and computer 
equipment that allow an employee to telework. For example, the cost of 
a computer, fax machine, modem, phone, printer, software, copier, and 
other expenses necessary to enable telework could count toward a tax 
credit, provided the person worked at home a minimum number of days per 
year.
  My legislation would provide a $500 tax credit ``for expenses paid or 
incurred under a teleworking arrangement for furnishings and electronic 
information equipment which are used to enable an individual to 
telework.'' An employee must telework a minimum of 75 days per year to 
qualify for the tax credit. Both the employer and employee are eligible 
for the tax credit, but the tax credit goes to whomever absorbs the 
expense for setting up the at-home worksite.
  I am pleased to work with Congressman Frank Wolf who has introduced 
identical legislation in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3819. A 
number of groups have already endorsed the Telework Tax Incentive Act 
including the International Telework Association and Council (ITAC), 
Covad Communications, National Town Builders Association, Litton 
Industries, Orbital Sciences Corporation, Consumer Electronic 
Association, Capnet, BTG Corporation, Electonic Industries Alliance, 
Telecommunications Industry Association, American Automobile 
Association Mid-Atlantic, Dimensions International Inc., Capunet, 
TManage, Science Applications International Corporation, AT&T, Northern 
Virginia Technology Council, Computer Associates Incorporated, and Dyn 
Corp.
  On October 9, 1999, legislation which I introduced last year in 
coordination with Representative Frank Wolf from Virginia was signed 
into law by the President as part of the annual Department of 
Transportation appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. S. 1521, the 
National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act, created a pilot program to 
study the feasibility of providing incentives for companies to allow 
their employees to telework in five major metropolitan areas including 
Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. Houston and Chicago 
have been added as well. I am pleased that the Philadelphia Area Design 
Team has been progressing well with its responsibility of examining the 
application of these incentives to the greater Philadelphia 
metropolitan area. I am excited that this opportunity continues to help 
to get the word out about the benefits of telecommuting for many 
employees and employers.
  Telecommuting improves air quality by reducing pollutants, provides 
employees and families flexibility, reduces traffic congestion, and 
increases productivity and retention rates for businesses while 
reducing their overhead costs. It's a growing opportunity and option 
which we should all include in our effort to maintain and improve 
quality of life issues in Pennsylvania and around the nation. According 
to statistics available from 1996, the Greater Philadelphia area ranked 
number 10 in the country for annual person-hours of delay due to 
traffic congestion. Because of this reality, all options including 
telecommuting should be pursued to address this challenge.
  The 1999 Telework America National Telework Survey, conducted by Joan 
H. Pratt Associates, found that today's 19.6 million teleworkers 
typically work 9 days per month at home at home with an average of 3 
hours per week during normal business hours. In this study, teleworkers 
or telecommuters are defined overall as employees or independent 
contractors who work at least one day per month at home. These research 
findings impact the bottom line for employers and employees. 
Teleworkers seek a blend of job-related and personal benefits to enable 
them to better handle their work and life responsibilities. For 
employers, savings just from less absenteeism and increased employee 
retention total more than $10,000 per teleworker per year. Thus an 
organization with 100 employees, 20 of whom telework, could potentially 
realize a savings of $200,000 annually, or more, when productivity 
gains are added.
  Work is something you do, not someplace you go. There is nothing 
magical about strapping ourselves into a car and driving sometimes up 
to an hour and a half, arriving at a workplace and sitting before a 
computer, when we can access the same information from a computer in 
our homes. Wouldn't it be great if we could replace the evening rush 
hour commute with time spent with the family, or coaching little league 
or other important quality of life matters?
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this 
legislation which promotes telework and helps encourage additional 
employee choices for the workplace.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. Smith of Oregon (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 2432. A bill to permit the catcher vessel Hazel Lorraine to 
conduct commercial fishing activities; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


  eligibility of the fishing vessel hazel lorraine under the american 
                             fisheries act

 Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing, 
with my colleague from Oregon, legislation which will correct an 
oversight in the American Fisheries Act of 1998. Some of my colleagues 
will recall that the American Fisheries Act was passed as part of the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act in the closing days of the 105th Congress.
  Let me speak briefly first to the American Fisheries Act, or AFA, 
itself. The AFA was a major revision of management policies for the 
valuable Bering Sea pollock fishery, raising domestic vessel ownership 
standards, while bringing greater stability to the pollock fishery by 
allowing fishers and processors to engage in limited cooperatives. 
Months of intense negotiations between interested congressional offices 
and a number of Alaskan and West Coast fishing interests resulted in 
the compromise that was passed into law.
  Oregon certainly does not have as great an interest in the Bering Sea 
pollock fishery as other states do. Nevertheless, Oregon-based vessels 
do participate in this and other distant-water fisheries. Many of these 
vessel owner-operators pioneered the development of the Alaskan pollock 
fishery during the Americanization of the Exclusive Economic Zone in 
the 1980s. The American Fisheries Act was supposed to allow these, and 
other fishing vessels with substantial history, to stay in the fishery 
while excluding new or speculative entrants. The language used in the 
AFA to achieve this purpose requires that qualified vessels must have 
delivered at least 250 metric tons of pollock in 1996, 1997, or an 
eight month period in 1998, to the shore-based processing plants that 
compose the ``inshore sector'' of the Bering Sea pollock fishery. 
Alternatively, the AFA requires vessels to have delivered at least 250 
metric tons of pollock in 1997 and have had at least 75 percent of 
their catch delivered to the ``offshore sector'' of factory trawlers in 
order to qualify for that sector of the Bering Sea pollock fishery.
  While it was thought that this qualification language in the American 
Fisheries Act would carry over all vessels with a substantial history 
in the fishery, this has turned out not to be the case. An Oregon-based 
vessel named the Hazel Lorraine--a vessel with years of Bering Sea 
pollock landings on record--has found itself locked out of both the 
inshore and offshore sectors of the Bering Sea pollock fishery due to 
the way the qualifications are worded in the AFA. On the one hand, the 
Hazel Lorraine does not qualify for the inshore sector. The fact that 
the then-Tyson Seafood plant in Kodiak was destroyed by a fire in 1997 
also impacted the Hazel Lorraine's deliveries during this period. On 
the other hand, the Hazel Lorraine does not qualify for the offshore 
sector either--also as a direct result of the Tyson fire.

[[Page S2743]]

In short, the Hazel Lorraine does not meet the AFA requirements for 
either the inshore or offshore sector for Bering Sea pollock despite a 
substantial record of deliveries in the fishery that stretches back 
more than fifteen years.
  Ironically, the owners of the Hazel Lorraine actively supported the 
American Fisheries Act as it had first been introduced in the 105th 
Congress. However the bill changed dramatically during a series of 
backroom negotiations before being tucked into an omnibus 
appropriations package. The AFA that actually passed the Congress 
differed substantially from the drafts that had been widely circulated 
in the fishing industry earlier that year.
  Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Hazel Lorraine is recognized 
in the North Pacific as a vessel that can legitimately claim a long 
history in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. It would be a terrible 
mistake if the Congress were to allow this vessel to continue to be 
shut out of its historic fishery. A number of industry leaders and 
associations, such as United Catcher Boats and the Midwater Trawlers 
Cooperative, have also recognized this and have stated their support 
for restoring the right of the Hazel Lorraine to fish in this pollock 
fishery.
  Over the course of the past year, Senator Wyden and I have discussed 
this issue with our colleagues, and have come to the conclusion that 
the best course of action is to introduce authorizing legislation that 
would clearly place the Hazel Lorraine among those vessels eligible to 
participate in the inshore sector of the Bering Sea pollock fishery. 
This legislation will do just that. I think my colleagues will find 
that those in the North Pacific fisheries who know the circumstances 
surrounding the Hazel Lorraine will be supportive of this legislation. 
I look forward to working with members of the Commerce Committee to 
bring this issue to a resolution during this session of the Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 2432

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

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF VESSEL AS AN ELIGIBLE VESSEL.

       Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (3) of section 
     208(a) of the American Fisheries Act (title II of division C 
     of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-
     624)), the catcher vessel HAZEL LORRAINE (United States 
     Official Number 592211) shall be considered to be a vessel 
     that is eligible to harvest the directed fishing allowance 
     under section 206(b)(1) of that Act pursuant to a Federal 
     fishing permit in the same manner as, and subject to the same 
     requirements and limitations on that harvesting as apply to, 
     catcher vessels that are eligible to harvest that directed 
     fishing allowance under section 208(a) of that Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 2433. A bill to establish the Red River National Wildlife Refuge; 
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                 red river national wildlife refuge act

 Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise, along with the 
senior Senator from Louisiana, to introduce legislation which would 
establish the Red River National Wildlife Refuge. Congressman McCreary 
is introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives. 
Mr. President, the Red River Valley located along the Red River 
Waterway in Caddo, Bossier, Red River, Natchitoches and Desoto parishes 
in Louisiana is of critical importance to over 350 species of birds, 
aquatic life and a wide array of other species associated with river 
basin ecosystems. It represents a historic migration corridor for 
migratory birds funneling through the mid-continent from as far north 
as the Arctic Circle and as far south as South America. The Red River 
Valley also represents the most degraded watershed in Louisiana. The 
bottomland hardwood forests of the Red River Valley have been almost 
totally cleared. Reforestation and restoration of native habitat will 
benefit a host of species.
  There are no significant public sanctuaries for over 300 river miles 
on this important migration corridor, and no significant Federal, State 
or private wildlife sanctuaries along the Red River north from 
Alexandria, Louisiana to the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary. The Red 
River Valley offers extraordinary recreational, research and 
educational opportunities for students, scientists, bird watchers, 
wildlife observers, hunters, anglers, trappers, hikers and nature 
photographers.
  The bill Senator Breaux and I are introducing today would: restore 
and preserve native Red River ecosystems; provide habitat for migratory 
birds; maximize fisheries on the Red River and its tributaries, natural 
lakes and man-made reservoirs; provide habitat for and population 
management of native plants and resident animals including restoration 
of extirpated species; provide technical assistance to private land 
owners in the restoration of their lands for the benefit of fish and 
wildlife and provide the public with opportunities for hunting, 
angling, trapping, photographing wildlife, hiking, bird watching and 
other outdoor recreational and educational activities.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2433

       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 ``Red River National Wildlife 
     Refuge Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The area of Louisiana known as the Red River Valley, 
     located along the Red River Waterway in Caddo, Bossier, Red 
     River, Natchitoches, and DeSoto Parishes, is of critical 
     importance to over 350 species of birds (including migratory 
     and resident waterfowl, shore birds, and neotropical 
     migratory birds), aquatic life, and a wide array of other 
     species associated with river basin ecosystems.
       (2) The bottomland hardwood forests of the Red River Valley 
     have been almost totally cleared. Reforestation and 
     restoration of native habitat will benefit a host of species.
       (3) The Red River Valley is part of a major continental 
     migration corridor for migratory birds funneling through the 
     mid continent from as far north as the Arctic Circle and as 
     far south as South America.
       (4) There are no significant public sanctuaries for over 
     300 river miles on this important migration corridor, and no 
     significant Federal, State, or private wildlife sanctuaries 
     along the Red River north of Alexandria, Louisiana.
       (5) Completion of the lock and dam system associated with 
     the Red River Waterway project up to Shreveport, Louisiana, 
     has enhanced opportunities for management of fish and 
     wildlife.
       (6) The Red River Valley offers extraordinary recreational, 
     research, and educational opportunities for students, 
     scientists, bird watchers, wildlife observers, hunters, 
     anglers, trappers, hikers, and nature photographers.
       (7) The Red River Valley is an internationally significant 
     environmental resource that has been neglected and requires 
     active restoration and management to protect and enhance the 
     value of the region as a habitat for fish and wildlife.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSES OF REFUGE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish as a 
     national wildlife refuge the lands, waters, and interests 
     therein acquired under section 5, at such time as the 
     Secretary determines that sufficient property has been 
     acquired under that section to constitute an area that can be 
     effectively managed as a national wildlife refuge for the 
     purposes set forth in subsection (b) of this section. The 
     national wildlife refuge so established shall be known as the 
     ``Red River National Wildlife Refuge''.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Refuge are the 
     following:
       (1) To restore and preserve native Red River ecosystems.
       (2) To provide habitat for migratory birds.
       (3) To maximize fisheries on the Red River and its 
     tributaries, natural lakes, and man-made reservoirs.
       (4) To provide habitat for and population management of 
     native plants and resident animals (including restoration of 
     extirpated species).
       (5) To provide technical assistance to private land owners 
     in the restoration of their lands for the benefit of fish and 
     wildlife.
       (6) To provide the public with opportunities for hunting, 
     angling, trapping, photographing wildlife, hiking, bird 
     watching, and other outdoor recreational and educational 
     activities.
       (7) To achieve the purposes under this subsection without 
     violating section 6.
       (c) Notice of Establishment.--The Secretary shall publish a 
     notice of the establishment of the Refuge--
       (1) in the Federal Register; and
       (2) in publications of local circulation in the vicinity of 
     the Refuge.

[[Page S2744]]

     SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION OF REFUGE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer all lands, 
     waters, and interests therein acquired under section 5 in 
     accordance with--
       (1) the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 
     of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq) and the Act of September 28, 
     1962 (76 Stat. 653; 16 U.S.C. 460k et seq; commonly known as 
     the Refuge Recreation Act);
       (2) the purposes of the Refuge set forth in section 3(b); 
     and
       (3) the management plan issued under subsection (b).
       (b) Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a 
     management plan for the Refuge.
       (2) Contents.--The management plan shall include provisions 
     that provide for the following:
       (A) Planning and design of trails and access points.
       (B) Planning of wildlife and habitat restoration, including 
     reforestation.
       (C) Permanent exhibits and facilities and regular 
     educational programs throughout the Refuge.
       (3) Public participation.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide an opportunity 
     for public participation in developing the management plan.
       (B) Local views.--The Secretary shall give special 
     consideration to views by local public and private entities 
     and individuals in developing the management plan.
       (c) Wildlife Interpretation and Education Center.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall construct, administer, 
     and maintain, at an appropriate site within the Refuge, a 
     wildlife interpretation and education center.
       (2) Purposes.--The center shall be designed and operated--
       (A) to promote environmental education; and
       (B) to provide an opportunity for the study and enjoyment 
     of wildlife in its natural habitat.

     SEC. 5. ACQUISITION OF LANDS, WATERS, AND INTERESTS THEREIN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall seek to acquire up to 
     50,000 acres of land, water, or interests therein (including 
     permanent conservation easements or servitudes) within the 
     boundaries designated under subsection (c). All lands, 
     waters, and interests acquired under this subsection shall be 
     part of the Refuge.
       (b) Method of Acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire an 
     interest in land or water for inclusion in the Refuge only by 
     donation, exchange, or purchase from a willing seller.
       (c) Designation of Boundaries.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
       (A) consult with appropriate State and local officials, 
     private conservation organizations, and other interested 
     parties (including the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 
     Fisheries, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and 
     Development, the Red River Waterway Commission, and the 
     Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments), regarding the 
     designation of appropriate boundaries for the Refuge within 
     the selection area;
       (B) designate boundaries of the Refuge that are within the 
     selection area and adequate for fulfilling the purposes of 
     the Refuge set forth in section 3(b); and
       (C) prepare a detailed map entitled ``Red River National 
     Wildlife Refuge'' depicting the boundaries of the Refuge 
     designated under subparagraph (B).
       (2) Selection area.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     selection area consists of Caddo, Bossier, Red River, DeSoto, 
     and Natchitoches Parishes, Louisiana.
       (3) Availability of map; notice.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) keep the map prepared under paragraph (1) on file and 
     available for public inspection at offices of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service of the District of Columbia 
     and Louisiana; and
       (B) publish in the Federal Register a notice of that 
     availability.
       (d) Boundary Revisions.--The Secretary may make such minor 
     revisions in the boundaries designated under subsection (c) 
     as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the Refuge 
     under section 3(b) or to facilitate the acquisition of 
     property for the Refuge.

     SEC. 6. CONTINUED PUBLIC SERVICES.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting or 
     preventing, and the Secretary shall not for purposes of the 
     Refuge prohibit or prevent--
       (1) the continuation or development of commercial or 
     recreational navigation on the Red River Waterway;
       (2) necessary construction, operation, or maintenance 
     activities associated with the Red River Waterway project;
       (3) the construction, improvement, or expansion of public 
     port or recreational facilities on the Red River Waterway; or
       (4) the construction, improvement, or replacement of 
     railroads or interstate highways within the selection area 
     (designated in section 5(c)(2)), or bridges that cross the 
     Red River.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) Refuge.--The term ``Refuge'' means the Red River 
     National Wildlife Refuge established under section 3.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. L. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. 
        Sarbanes):
  S. 2434. A bill to provide that amounts allotted to a State under 
section 2401 of the Social Security Act for each of fiscal years 1998 
and 1999 shall remain available through fiscal year 2002; to the 
Committee on Finance.


 state children's health insurance program (schip) preservation act of 
                                  2000

 Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today 
by Senators Bryan, Thompson, and Sarbanes in introducing the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Preservation Act of 2000.
  This legislation addresses what I believe to be an unintended 
consequence of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), which created the 
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide health 
insurance coverage to millions of our nation's uninsured children. 
Specifically, the BBA called for states to enroll 2.5 million uninsured 
children in SCHIP within three years of enactment of the bill. 
According to the Health Care Financing Administration, states enrolled 
1.98 million children in SCHIP in 1999. While this represents an 
increase in states' enrollment efforts, we need to ensure that the 
federal government is financially committed to this program, and thus 
to providing health insurance to our nation's children.
  SCHIP was designed to allow states to spend each year's allotment 
over a three-year period; if a state began its program in 1998, it has 
until the end of 2000 to spend its 1998 allotment. The legislation we 
are introducing today will extend this year's looming deadline through 
the end of Fiscal Year 2002, thus allowing states to keep their 
unexpended SCHIP allotments for up to a total of five years. Many 
states have had difficulties conducting outreach and enrolling SCHIP-
eligible children. We must not penalize states that need more time to 
identify and enroll children in this important program.
  Without this bill, the result--whether intended or unintended--would 
be a potential reduction of up to $4 billion for children's health 
programs throughout the country. A reduction of this magnitude would 
undermine many critical programs that provide quality health coverage 
to needy children. It may also inhibit the ability of states to provide 
services for children already enrolled in SCHIP, as well as encouraging 
some states to scale back on outreach and enrollment efforts. For 
example, under current statute, Rhode Island will lose approximately $8 
million annually starting in Fiscal Year 2001. This loss will undermine 
the efforts of the state to target and enroll every child who is 
eligible for SCHIP in Rhode Island. Reductions in SCHIP allotments to 
states will mean that SCHIP-eligible children who are not yet enrolled 
in the program may continue to go without health insurance.
  Data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that the number of children 
without health insurance increased from 9.8 million children in 1995 to 
11.1 million children in 1998. This increase in the uninsured rate 
occurred in spite of the enactment of SCHIP in 1997. We must not allow 
this trend to continue. States need to be able to tap into their 
unexpended SCHIP funds to continue their outreach and enrollment 
efforts. At a time when our nation's uninsured rate continues to climb 
above 44 million, it makes little sense to be reducing these much 
needed SCHIP payments to states that are desperately trying to reach 
out to and enroll these vulnerable and needy children.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2434

       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 ``State Children's Health 
     Insurance Program (SCHIP) Preservation Act of 2000''.

[[Page S2745]]

     SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND FISCAL YEAR 1999 
                   ALLOTMENTS UNDER SCHIP.

       Notwithstanding subsection (e) of section 2104 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd), amounts allotted to a 
     State under that section for each of fiscal years 1998 and 
     1999 shall remain available through September 30, 
     2002.

 Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senators 
Lincoln Chafee, Paul Sarbanes, and Fred Thompson as an original 
cosponsor of the State Children's Health Insurance Program Preservation 
Act of 2000, and I thank Senator Chafee for his leadership on this 
bill.
  This important legislation provides that Federal funds allotted to 
States under the state children's health insurance program for each of 
fiscal years 1998 and 1999 will remain available to the states through 
fiscal year 2002.
  The enactment of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act's state children's 
health insurance program (CHIP was a seminal event in addressing the 
problem of uninsured children in this nation. The $24 billion funding 
reflected the seriousness of the national commitment to ensuring 
children will have access to health care services. It provided my state 
of Nevada and the nation with an incredible opportunity to address a 
most stubborn problem--the increasing number of children who have no 
health care insurance.
  States were provided three options to provide child health care 
services through the federal funding allotments: to expand Medicaid 
coverage under enhanced Medicaid matching rates; to create or expand 
separate child health insurance programs; or to use a combination of 
the two. All options, rightly I believe, require the States to spend 
some of their own funds as a condition of participating in the program.
  The choices states face under the CHIP program reflect the 
flexibility they wanted to tailor these programs, within federal 
guidelines, to the specific needs of each state to reduce the number of 
uninsured children.
  Nevada's CHIP program--``Nevada CheckUp''--was approved by HCFA in 
August 1998 and began operating in October 1998. The program is 
separate from the Medicaid program, but the two are coordinated in the 
application process to ensure those children eligible for Medicaid are 
enrolled in that program. The Nevada CheckUp program covers applicants 
up to 200% of the federal poverty level, and children up to age 18.
  Since its October 1998 beginning, Nevada CheckUp has enrolled over 
9,000 children, representing almost 60% of the anticipated total 
eligible children. But there are approximately 6,000 children in Nevada 
who thus remain uninsured, who need health care coverage, and who must 
be found and covered. We can and must do better.
  It took the state some time to develop its program, create a state 
plan, get state and federal approval, hire and train the staff and 
begin the marketing outreach and enrollment activities. In the one and 
one-half years the program has been operating, the state has learned 
what has worked successfully, and what has not worked. They are in the 
process of developing a new marketing plan, which will allow us to 
reach more uninsured Nevada children. The new proposal will use more 
media and broadcast tools to target the low income population.
  The CHIP program is still in its infancy, and states are still 
learning how best to develop programs to provide children with much-
needed health insurance. I am hopeful as this program matures, we will 
see a most successful effort to cover our nation's children, and ensure 
their health care needs are met into the next century.
  Allow the states to keep their federal allotment for an additional 
two years should provide Nevada, and other States, the opportunity to 
reach the total number of eligible children, and increase the number of 
children with health insurance.
  I sincerely hope Nevada will find the means to make its full match, 
so our state can draw 100 percent of its available federal funds. Wise 
use of these Federal funds, with a continued commitment to our 
children, and with a 100-percent effort by our state will get the job 
done. Our children simply deserve no less than a fully-funded 
effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. 
        Dodd):
  S. 2435. A bill to amend part B of title IV of the Social Security 
Act to crate a grant program to promote joint activities among Federal, 
State, and local public child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse 
prevention and treatment agencies; to the Committee on Finance.


           Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Child 
Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act.'' I am pleased to be 
joined by my good friends, Senators Rockefeller, DeWine, and Dodd on 
this exciting new proposal. Mr. President, this bill is an enormously 
important piece of legislation. It provides the means for states to 
support some of our most vulnerable families--families who are 
struggling with alcohol and drug abuse, and the children who are being 
raised in these abusive homes.
  It is obvious, both anecdotally and statistically, that child welfare 
is significantly impacted by parental substance abuse. And it makes a 
lot of sense to fund state programs to address these two issues in 
tandem. The real question in designing and supporting child welfare 
programs is how can we--public policy makers, government officials, 
welfare agencies--honestly expect to improve child welfare without 
appropriately and adequately addressing the root problems affecting 
these children's lives?
  We know that substance abuse is the primary ingredient in child abuse 
and neglect. Most studies find that between one-third and two-thirds--
and some say as high as 80 percent to 90 percent--of children in the 
child welfare system come from families where parental substance abuse 
is a contributing factor.
  The Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act of 2000 creates 
a new five-year $1.9 billion state block grant program to address the 
connection between substance abuse and child welfare. Payments would be 
made to promote joint activities among federal, state, and local public 
child welfare and alcohol and drug prevention and treatment agencies. 
Our underlying belief, and the point of this bill, is to encourage 
existing agencies to work together to keep children safe.
  HHS will award grants to States and Indian tribes to encourage 
programs for families who are known to the child welfare system and 
have alcohol and drug abuse problems. These grants will forge new and 
necessary partnerships between the child protection agencies and the 
alcohol and drug prevention and treatment agencies in States so they 
will work together to provide services for this unique population. The 
program is designed to increase the capacity of both the child welfare 
and alcohol and drug systems to comprehensively address the needs of 
these families to improve child safety, family stability, and 
permanence, and to promote recovery from alcohol and drug problems.
  Statistics paint an unhappy picture for children of substance abusing 
parents: a 1998 report by the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse 
found that 36 states reported that parental substance abuse and poverty 
are the top two problems exhibited by families reported for child 
maltreatment. And a 1997 survey conducted by the Child Welfare League 
of America found that at least 52 percent of placements into out-of-
home care were due in part to parental substance abuse.
  Children whose parents abuse alcohol and other drugs are almost three 
times likelier to be abused and more than four times likelier to be 
neglected than children of parents who are not substance abusers. 
Children in alcohol-abusing families were nearly four times more likely 
to be maltreated overall, almost five times more likely to be 
physically neglected, and 10 times more likely to be emotionally 
neglected than children in families without alcohol problems.
  A 1994 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found 
that children prenatally exposed to substances have been found to be 
two to three times more likely to be abused than non-exposed children. 
And as many as 80 percent of prenatally drug exposed infants will come 
to the attention of child welfare before their first

[[Page S2746]]

birthday. Abused and neglected children under age six face the risk of 
more severe damage than older children because their brains and 
neurological systems are still developing.
  Unfortunately, child welfare agencies estimate that only a third of 
the 67 percent of the parents who need drug or alcohol prevention and 
treatment services actually get help today.
  Mr. President, this bill is about preventing problems. Senators 
Rockefeller, DeWine, Dodd, and I know that what is most important here 
is the safety and well-being of America's children. We expect much of 
our youth because they are the future of our nation. In turn, we must 
be willing to give them the support they need to learn and grow, so 
that they can lead healthy and productive lives.
  In 1997 Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, authored 
by the late Senator John Chafee. The 1997 Adoption law promotes safety, 
stability, and permanence for all abused and neglected children and 
requires timely decision-making in all proceedings to determine whether 
children can safely return home, or whether they should be moved to 
permanent, adoptive homes. Specifically, the law requires a State to 
ensure that services are provided to the families of children who are 
at risk, so that children can remain safely with their families or 
return home after being in foster care.
  The bill we are introducing today identifies a very specific area in 
which families and children need services--substance abuse. And it will 
ensure that states have the funding necessary to provide services as 
required under the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
  I encourage my colleagues to take a serious look at our bill, to 
think seriously about the future for kids in their states, and to work 
with us in passing this very important piece of legislation. I ask 
unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2435

       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 ``Child Protection/Alcohol and 
     Drug Partnership Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. CHILD PROTECTION/ALCOHOL AND DRUG PARTNERSHIPS FOR 
                   CHILDREN.

       Part B of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     620 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

    ``Subpart 3--Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnerships For 
                                Children

     ``SEC. 440. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subpart:
       ``(1) Alaska native organization.--The term `Alaska Native 
     Organization' means any organized group of Alaska Natives 
     eligible to operate a Federal program under the Indian Self-
     Determination Act (25 U.S.C. 450f et seq.) or such group's 
     designee.
       ``(2) Administrative costs.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `administrative costs' means 
     the costs for the general administration of administrative 
     activities, including contract costs and all overhead costs.
       ``(B) Exclusion.--Such term does not include the direct 
     costs of providing services and costs related to case 
     management, training, technical assistance, evaluation, 
     establishment, and operation of information systems, and such 
     other similar costs that are also an integral part of service 
     delivery.
       ``(3) Eligible state.--The term `eligible State' means a 
     State that submits a joint application from the State 
     agencies that--
       ``(A) includes a plan that meets the requirements of 
     section 442; and
       ``(B) is approved by the Secretary for a 5-year period 
     after consultation with the Assistant Secretary for the 
     Administration for Children and Families and the 
     Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
     Services Administration.
       ``(4) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any 
     Indian tribe, band, Nation or other organized group or 
     community of Indians, including any Alaska Native 
     Organization, that is recognized as eligible for the special 
     programs and services provided by the United States to 
     Indians because of their status as Indians.
       ``(5) State.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `State' means each of the 50 
     States, the District of Columbia, and the territories 
     described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Territories.--
       ``(i) In general.--The territories described in this 
     subparagraph are Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
       ``(ii) Authority to modify requirements.--The Secretary may 
     modify the requirements of this subpart with respect to a 
     territory described in clause (i) to the extent necessary to 
     allow such a territory to conduct activities through funds 
     provided under a grant made under this subpart.
       ``(6) State agencies.--The term `State agencies' means the 
     State child welfare agency and the unit of State government 
     responsible for the administration of the substance abuse 
     prevention and treatment block grant provided under subpart 
     II of part B of title XIX of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 300x-21 et seq.).
       ``(7) Tribal organization.--The term `tribal organization' 
     means the recognized governing body of an Indian tribe.

     ``SEC. 441. GRANTS TO PROMOTE CHILD PROTECTION/ALCOHOL AND 
                   DRUG PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN.

       ``(a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Secretary may award 
     grants to eligible States and directly to Indian tribes in 
     accordance with the requirements of this subpart for the 
     purpose of promoting joint activities among Federal, State, 
     and local public child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse 
     prevention and treatment agencies (and among child welfare 
     and alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment agencies 
     that are providing services to children in Indian tribes) 
     that focus on families with alcohol or drug abuse problems 
     who come to the attention of the child welfare system and are 
     designed to--
       ``(1) increase the capacity of both the child welfare 
     system and the alcohol and drug abuse prevention and 
     treatment system to address comprehensively and in a timely 
     manner the needs of such families to improve child safety, 
     family stability, and permanence; and
       ``(2) promote recovery from alcohol and drug abuse 
     problems.
       ``(b) Notification.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     a joint application is submitted by the State agencies or an 
     application is submitted by an Indian tribe, the Secretary 
     shall notify a State or Indian tribe that the application has 
     been approved or disapproved.

     ``SEC. 442. PLAN REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Contents.--Subject to subsection (c), the plan shall 
     contain the following:
       ``(1) A detailed description of how the State agencies will 
     work jointly to implement a range of activities to meet the 
     alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment needs of 
     families who come to the attention of the child welfare 
     system and to promote child safety, permanence, and family 
     stability.
       ``(2) An assurance that the heads of the State agencies 
     shall jointly administer the grant program funded under this 
     subpart and a description of how they will do so.
       ``(3) A description of the nature and extent of the problem 
     of alcohol and drug abuse among families who come to the 
     attention of the child welfare system in the State, and of 
     any plans being implemented to further identify and assess 
     the extent of the problem.
       ``(4) A description of any joint activities already being 
     undertaken by the State agencies in the State on behalf of 
     families with alcohol and drug abuse problems who come to the 
     attention of the child welfare system (including any existing 
     data on the impact of such joint activities) such as 
     activities relating to--
       ``(A) the appropriate screening and assessment of cases;
       ``(B) consultation on cases involving alcohol and drug 
     abuse;
       ``(C) arrangements for addressing confidentiality and 
     sharing of information;
       ``(D) cross training of staff;
       ``(E) co-location of services;
       ``(F) support for comprehensive treatment programs for 
     parents and their children; and
       ``(G) establishing priority of child welfare families for 
     assessment or treatment.
       ``(5)(A) A description of the joint activities to be funded 
     in whole or in part with the funds provided under the grant, 
     including the sequencing of the activities proposed to be 
     conducted under the 5-year funding cycle and the goals to be 
     achieved during such funding cycle. The activities and goals 
     shall be designed to improve the capacity of the State 
     agencies to work jointly to improve child safety, family 
     stability, and permanence for children whose families come to 
     the attention of the child welfare system and to promote 
     their parents' recovery from alcohol and drug abuse.
       ``(B) The description shall include a statement as to why 
     the State agencies chose the specified activities and goals.
       ``(6) A description as to whether and how the joint 
     activities described in paragraph (5), and other related 
     activities funded with Federal funds, will address some or 
     all of the following practices and procedures:
       ``(A) Practices and procedures designed to appropriately--
       ``(i) identify alcohol and drug treatment needs;
       ``(ii) assess such needs;
       ``(iii) assess risks to the safety of a child and the need 
     for permanency with respect to the placement of a child;
       ``(iv) enroll families in appropriate services and 
     treatment in their communities; and
       ``(v) regularly assess the progress of families receiving 
     such treatment.
       ``(B) Practices and procedures designed to provide 
     comprehensive and timely individualized alcohol and drug 
     abuse prevention and treatment services for families who come 
     to the attention of the child welfare system that include a 
     range of options that are available, accessible, and 
     appropriate, and that may include the following components:

[[Page S2747]]

       ``(i) Preventive and early intervention services for 
     children of parents with alcohol and drug abuse problems that 
     integrate alcohol and drug abuse prevention services with 
     mental health and domestic violence services, and that 
     recognize the mental, emotional, and developmental problems 
     the children may experience.
       ``(ii) Prevention and early intervention services for 
     parents at risk for alcohol and drug abuse problems.
       ``(iii) Comprehensive home-based, outpatient, and 
     residential treatment options.
       ``(iv) After-care support (both formal and informal) for 
     families in recovery that promotes child safety and family 
     stability.
       ``(v) Services and supports that focus on parents, parents 
     with their children, parents' children, other family members, 
     and parent-child interaction.
       ``(C) Elimination of existing barriers to treatment and to 
     child safety and permanence, such as difficulties in sharing 
     information among agencies and differences between the values 
     and treatment protocols of the different agencies.
       ``(D) Effective engagement and retention strategies.
       ``(E) Pre-service and in-service joint training of 
     management and staff of child welfare and alcohol and drug 
     abuse prevention and treatment agencies, and, where 
     appropriate, judges and other court staff, to--
       ``(i) increase such individuals' awareness and 
     understanding of alcohol and drug abuse and related child 
     abuse and neglect;
       ``(ii) more accurately identify and screen alcohol and drug 
     abuse and child abuse in families;
       ``(iii) improve assessment skills of both child abuse and 
     alcohol and drug abuse staff, including skills to assess risk 
     to children's safety;
       ``(iv) increase staff knowledge of the services and 
     resources that are available in such individuals' communities 
     and appropriate for such families; and
       ``(v) increase awareness of the importance of permanence 
     for children and the timelines for decisionmaking regarding 
     permanence in the child welfare system.
       ``(F) Progress in enhancing the abilities of the State 
     agencies to improve the data systems of such agencies in 
     order to monitor the progress of families, evaluate service 
     and treatment outcomes, and determine which approaches and 
     activities are most effective.
       ``(G) Evaluation strategies to demonstrate the 
     effectiveness of treatment and identify the aspects of 
     treatment that have the greatest impact on families in 
     different circumstances.
       ``(H) Training and technical assistance to increase the 
     capacity within the State to carry out 1 or more of the 
     activities described in this paragraph or related activities 
     that are designed to expand prevention and treatment services 
     for, and staff training to assist families with alcohol and 
     drug abuse problems who come to the attention of the child 
     welfare system.
       ``(7) A description of the jurisdictions in the State 
     (including whether such jurisdictions are urban, suburban, or 
     rural) where the joint activities will be provided, and the 
     plans for expanding such activities to other parts of the 
     State during the 5-year funding cycle.
       ``(8) A description of the methods to be used in measuring 
     progress toward the goals identified under paragraph (5), 
     including how the State agencies will jointly measure their 
     performance in accordance with section 445, and how remaining 
     barriers to meeting the needs of families with alcohol or 
     drug abuse problems who come to the attention of the child 
     welfare system will be assessed.
       ``(9) A description of what input was obtained in the 
     development of the plan and the joint application from each 
     of the following groups of individuals, and the manner in 
     which each will continue to be involved in the proposed joint 
     activities:
       ``(A) Staff who provide alcohol and drug abuse prevention 
     and treatment and related services to families who come to 
     the attention of the child welfare system.
       ``(B) Advocates for children and parents who come to the 
     attention of the child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse 
     prevention and treatment systems.
       ``(C) Consumers of both child welfare and alcohol and drug 
     abuse prevention and treatment services.
       ``(D) Direct service staff and supervisors from public and 
     private child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse prevention 
     and treatment agencies.
       ``(E) Judges and court staff.
       ``(F) Representatives of the State agencies and private 
     providers providing health, mental health, domestic violence, 
     housing, education, and employment services.
       ``(G) A representative of the State agency in charge of 
     administering the temporary assistance to needy families 
     program funded under part A of this title.
       ``(10) An assurance of the coordination, to the extent 
     feasible and appropriate, of the activities funded under a 
     grant made under this subpart with the services or benefits 
     provided under other Federal or federally assisted programs 
     that serve families with alcohol and drug abuse problems who 
     come to the attention of the child welfare system, including 
     health, mental health, domestic violence, housing, and 
     employment programs, the temporary assistance to needy 
     families program funded under part A of this title, other 
     child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse prevention and 
     treatment programs, and the courts.
       ``(11) An assurance that not more than 10 percent of 
     expenditures under the plan for any fiscal year shall be for 
     administrative costs.
       ``(12) An assurance that alcohol and drug treatment 
     services provided at least in part with funds provided under 
     a grant made under this subpart shall be licensed, certified, 
     or otherwise approved by the appropriate State alcohol and 
     drug abuse agencies, or in the case of an Indian tribe, by a 
     State alcohol and drug abuse agency, the Indian Health 
     Service, or other designated licensing agency.
       ``(13) An assurance that Federal funds provided to the 
     State under a grant made under this subpart will not be used 
     to supplant Federal or non-Federal funds for services and 
     activities provided as of the date of the submission of the 
     plan that assist families with alcohol and drug abuse 
     problems who come to the attention of the child welfare 
     system.
       ``(b) Amendments.--
       ``(1) In general.--An eligible State or Indian tribe may 
     amend, in whole or in part, its plan at any time through 
     transmittal of a plan amendment.
       ``(2) 60-day approval deadline.--A plan amendment is 
     considered approved unless the Secretary notifies an eligible 
     State or Indian tribe in writing, within 60 days after 
     receipt of the amendment, that the amendment is disapproved 
     (and the reasons for disapproval) or that specified 
     additional information is needed.
       ``(c) Requirements for Applications By Indian Tribes.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to be eligible for a grant made 
     under this subpart, an Indian tribe shall--
       ``(A) submit a plan to the Secretary that describes--
       ``(i) the activities the tribe will undertake with both 
     child welfare and alcohol and drug agencies that serve the 
     tribe's children to address the needs of families who come to 
     the attention of the child welfare agencies and have alcohol 
     and drug problems; and
       ``(ii) whether and how such activities address any of the 
     practice and policy areas in subsection (a)(6); and
       ``(B) subject to paragraph (2), meet the other requirements 
     of subsection (a) unless, with respect to a specific 
     requirement of such subsection, the Secretary determines that 
     it would be inappropriate to apply such requirement to an 
     Indian tribe, taking into account the resources, needs, and 
     other circumstances of the Indian tribe.
       ``(2) Administrative costs; use of federal funds.--
     Paragraphs (11) and (13) of subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     a plan submitted by an Indian tribe. The indirect cost rate 
     agreement in effect for an Indian tribe shall apply with 
     respect to administrative costs under the tribe's plan.
       ``(3) Authority for intertribal consortium.--The 
     participating Indian tribes of an intertribal consortium may 
     develop and submit a single plan that meets the applicable 
     requirements of subsection (a) (as so determined by the 
     Secretary) and paragraph (1) of this subsection.

     ``SEC. 443. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) Appropriations.--For the purpose of providing 
     allotments to eligible States and Indian tribes under this 
     subpart and research and training under subsection (b)(3), 
     there is appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated--
       ``(1) for fiscal year 2001, $200,000,000;
       ``(2) for fiscal year 2002, $275,000,000;
       ``(3) for fiscal year 2003, $375,000,000;
       ``(4) for fiscal year 2004, $475,000,000; and
       ``(5) for fiscal year 2005, $575,000,000.
       ``(b) Reservation of Funds.--With respect to a fiscal year:
       ``(1) Territories.--The Secretary shall reserve 2 percent 
     of the amount appropriated under subsection (a) for such 
     fiscal year for payments to Puerto Rico, Guam, the United 
     States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern 
     Mariana Islands.
       ``(2) Indian tribes.--The Secretary shall reserve not less 
     than 3 nor more than 5 percent of the amount appropriated 
     under subsection (a) for such fiscal year for direct payments 
     to Indian tribes and Indian tribal organizations for 
     activities intended to increase the capacity of the Indian 
     tribes and tribal organizations to expand treatment, 
     services, and training to assist families with alcohol and 
     drug abuse problems who come to the attention of the child 
     welfare agencies.
       ``(3) Research and training.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary shall reserve 1 percent of the amount appropriated 
     under subsection (a) for such fiscal year for practice-based 
     research on the effectiveness of various approaches for the 
     screening, assessment, engagement, treatment, retention, and 
     monitoring of families with alcohol and drug abuse problems 
     who come to the attention of the child welfare system, and 
     for training of staff in such areas and shall ensure that a 
     portion of such amount is used for research on the 
     effectiveness of these approaches for Indian children and for 
     the training of staff serving children from the Indian 
     tribes.
       ``(B) Determination of use of funds.--Funds reserved under 
     subparagraph (A) may only be used to carry out a research 
     agenda that addresses the areas described in such 
     subparagraph and that is established by the Secretary, 
     together with the Assistant Secretary for the Administration 
     for Children and Families and the Administrator of Substance 
     Abuse and Mental Health Services

[[Page S2748]]

     Administration, with input from public and private nonprofit 
     providers, consumers, representatives of Indian tribes, and 
     advocates, as well as others with expertise in research in 
     such areas.

     ``SEC. 444. PAYMENTS TO ELIGIBLE STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES.

       ``(a) Amount of Grant.--
       ``(1) Eligible states other than territories.--
       ``(A) In general.--From the amount appropriated under 
     subsection (a) of section 443 for a fiscal year, after the 
     reservation of funds required under subsection (b) of that 
     section for the fiscal year and subject to subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), the Secretary shall pay to each eligible State 
     (after the Secretary has determined that the State has 
     satisfied the matching requirement under subsection (b)) an 
     amount that bears the same ratio to such amount for such 
     fiscal year as the number of children under the age of 18 
     that reside in the eligible State bears to the total number 
     of children under the age of 18 who reside in all such 
     eligible States for such fiscal year.
       ``(B) Minimum allotment.--In no case shall the amount of a 
     payment to an eligible State for a fiscal year be less than 
     an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the amount appropriated 
     under subsection (a) of section 443 for the fiscal year, 
     after the reservation of funds required under subsection (b) 
     of that section.
       ``(C) Pro rata reductions.--The Secretary shall make pro 
     rata reductions in the amounts of the allotments determined 
     under subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year to the extent 
     necessary to comply with subparagraph (B).
       ``(2) Territories.--From the amounts reserved under section 
     443(b)(1) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall pay to each 
     territory described in section 440(5)(B) with an approved 
     plan that meets the requirements of section 442 (after the 
     Secretary has determined that the territory has satisfied the 
     matching requirement under subsection (b)) an amount that 
     bears the same ratio to such amount for such fiscal year as 
     the number of children under the age of 18 that reside in the 
     territory bears to the total number of children under the age 
     of 18 who reside in all such territories for such fiscal 
     year.
       ``(3) Indian tribes or tribal organizations.--From the 
     amount reserved under section 443(b)(2) for a fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall pay to each Indian tribe with an approved 
     plan that meets the requirements of section 442(c) (after the 
     Secretary has determined that the Indian tribe has satisfied 
     the matching requirement under subsection (b)) an amount that 
     bears the same ratio to such reserved amount for such fiscal 
     year as the number of children under the age of 18 in the 
     Indian tribe bears to the total number of children under the 
     age of 18 in all Indian tribes with plans so approved for 
     such fiscal year, as determined by the Secretary on the basis 
     of the most current and reliable information available to the 
     Secretary. For purposes of making the allocations required 
     under the preceding sentence, an Indian tribe may submit data 
     and other information that it has on the number of Indian 
     children under the age of 18 for consideration by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(b) Matching Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to receive a grant under this 
     subpart for a fiscal year, an eligible State or Indian tribe 
     shall provide through non-Federal contributions the 
     applicable percentage determined under paragraph (2) for such 
     fiscal year of the costs of conducting activities funded in 
     whole or in part with funds provided under the grant. Such 
     contributions shall be paid jointly by the State agencies, in 
     the case of an eligible State, or by an Indian tribe.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage for an eligible State or 
     Indian tribe for a fiscal year is--
       ``(A) 15 percent, in the case of fiscal years 2001 and 
     2002;
       ``(B) 20 percent, in the case of fiscal years 2003 and 
     2004; and
       ``(C) 25 percent, in the case of fiscal year 2005.
       ``(3) Source of match.--
       ``(A) Eligible states.--The non-Federal contributions 
     required of an eligible State under this subsection may be in 
     cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, including plant, 
     equipment, or services. The contributions may be made 
     directly or through donations from public or private 
     entities. Amounts provided by the Federal Government, or 
     services assisted or subsidized to any significant extent by 
     the Federal Government may not be included in determining 
     whether an eligible State has provided the applicable 
     percentage of such contributions for a fiscal year.
       ``(B) Indian tribes.--With respect to an Indian tribe, such 
     contributions may be made in cash, through donated funds, 
     through non-public third party in kind contributions, or from 
     Federal funds received under any of the following provisions 
     of law:
       ``(i) The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1901 
     et seq.).
       ``(ii) The Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b et seq.).
       ``(iii) Title I of the Housing and Community Development 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.).
       ``(4) Waiver.--
       ``(A) Eligible states.--In the case of an eligible State, 
     the Secretary, after consultation with the Assistant 
     Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families 
     and the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental 
     Health Services Administration, may modify the applicable 
     percentage determined under paragraph (2) for matching funds 
     if the Secretary determines that economic conditions in the 
     eligible State justify making such modification.
       ``(B) Indian tribes.--In the case of an Indian tribe, the 
     Secretary may modify the applicable percentage determined 
     under such paragraph if the Secretary determines that it 
     would be inappropriate to apply to the Indian tribe, taking 
     into the resources and needs of the tribe and the amount of 
     funds the tribe would receive under a grant made under this 
     section.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--Funds provided under a grant made 
     under this subpart may only be used to carry out activities 
     specified in the plan, as approved by the Secretary.
       ``(d) Deadline for Request for Payment.--An eligible State 
     or Indian tribe shall apply to be paid funds under a grant 
     made under this subpart not later than the beginning of the 
     fourth quarter of a fiscal year or such funds shall be 
     reallotted under subsection (f).
       ``(e) Carryover of Funds.--Funds paid to an eligible State 
     or Indian tribe under a grant made under this subpart for a 
     fiscal year may be expended in that fiscal year or the 
     succeeding fiscal year.
       ``(f) Reallotment of Funds.--
       ``(1) Eligible states.--In the case of an eligible State 
     that does not apply for funds allotted to the eligible State 
     under a grant made under this subpart for a fiscal year 
     within the time provided under subsection (d), or that does 
     not expend such funds during the time provided under 
     subsection (e), the funds which the eligible State would have 
     been entitled to for such fiscal year shall be reallotted to 
     1 or more other eligible States on the basis of each such 
     State's relative need for additional payments, as determined 
     by the Secretary, after consultation with the Assistant 
     Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families 
     and the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental 
     Health Services Administration.
       ``(2) Indian tribes.--In the case of an Indian tribe that 
     does not expend funds allotted to the tribe during the time 
     provided under subsection (e), the funds to which the Indian 
     tribe would have been entitled to for such fiscal year shall 
     be reallotted to the remaining Indian tribes that are 
     implementing approved plans in amounts that are proportional 
     to the percentage of Indian children under the age of 18 in 
     each such tribe.

     ``SEC. 445. PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY; REPORTS AND 
                   EVALUATIONS.

       ``(a) Performance Measurement.--
       ``(1) Establishment of indicators.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Assistant Secretary for the 
     Administration for Children and Families, the Administrator 
     of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
     Administration, Chief Executive Officers of a State or 
     Territory, State legislators, State and local public 
     officials responsible for administering child welfare and 
     alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment programs, 
     court staff, consumers of the services, and advocates for 
     children and parents who come to the attention of the child 
     welfare system, shall, within 12 months of the date of 
     enactment of the Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug 
     Partnership Act of 2000, establish indicators that will be 
     used to assess periodically the performance of eligible 
     States and Indian tribes in using grant funds provided under 
     this subpart to promote child safety, permanence, and well-
     being and recovery in families who come to the attention of 
     the child welfare system.
       ``(2) Coordination.--The indicators established under 
     paragraph (1) shall be based on and coordinated with the 
     performance outcomes established for the child welfare system 
     pursuant to section 203(b) of the Adoption and Safe Families 
     Act of 1997 and the performance measures developed under 
     subpart II of part B of title XIX of the Public Health 
     Service Act (relating to the substance abuse prevention and 
     treatment block grant).
       ``(3) Purpose.--The indicators will be used to measure 
     periodically the progress made by the State agencies and by 
     child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse prevention and 
     treatment agencies serving children in Indian tribes in the 
     activities that such agencies jointly engage in with such 
     grant funds. An eligible State or Indian tribe will be 
     measured against itself, assessing progress over time against 
     a baseline established at the time the grant activities were 
     undertaken.
       ``(4) Illustrative examples.--The indicators developed 
     should address the range of activities that eligible States 
     and Indian tribes have the option of engaging in with such 
     grant funds. Examples of the types of progress to be measured 
     in the different areas of activity include the following:
       ``(A) Improving the screening and assessment of families 
     who come to the attention of the child welfare system with 
     alcohol and drug problems, so such families can be promptly 
     referred for appropriate treatment when necessary.
       ``(B) Increasing the availability of comprehensive and 
     timely individualized treatment for families with alcohol and 
     drug problems who come to the attention of the child welfare 
     system.
       ``(C) Increasing the number or proportion of families who, 
     when they come to the attention of the child welfare system 
     with alcohol and drug problems, promptly enter appropriate 
     treatment.

[[Page S2749]]

       ``(D) Increasing the engagement and retention in treatment 
     of families with alcohol and drug problems who come to the 
     attention of the child welfare system.
       ``(E) Decreasing the number of children who re-enter foster 
     care after being returned to families who had alcohol or drug 
     problems when the children entered foster care.
       ``(F) Increasing the number or proportion of staff in both 
     the public child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse 
     prevention and treatment agencies who have received training 
     on the needs of families that come to the attention of the 
     child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse prevention and 
     treatment systems for help, and the help that can be provided 
     to such families.
       ``(G) Increasing the proportion of parents who complete 
     treatment for alcohol or drug abuse and show improvement in 
     their pre-employment or employment status.
       ``(5) Determination of progress.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--Not later than the end of the first 
     fiscal year in which funds are received under a grant made 
     under this subpart, the State agencies in each eligible State 
     that receives such funds, and the Indian tribes that receive 
     such funds, shall submit to the Secretary a report on the 
     activities carried out during the fiscal year with such 
     funds. The report shall contain such information as the 
     Secretary determines is necessary to provide an accurate 
     description of the activities conducted with such funds and 
     of any changes in the use of such funds that are planned for 
     the succeeding fiscal year.
       ``(B) Use of indicators.--As soon as possible after the 
     establishment of indicators under paragraph (1), the State 
     agencies and Indian tribes shall conduct evaluations, 
     directly or under contract, of their progress with respect to 
     such indicators that are directly related to activities the 
     eligible State or Indian tribe is engaging in with such grant 
     funds and include information on the evaluation in the 
     reports to the Secretary required under subparagraphs (C) and 
     (D). After the third year in which such activities are 
     conducted, an eligible State or Indian tribe shall include in 
     the evaluation at least some indicators that address 
     improvements in treatment for families with alcohol and drug 
     problems who come to the attention of the child welfare 
     system.
       ``(C) Subsequent reports.--After the initial report is 
     submitted under subparagraph (A), an eligible State or Indian 
     tribe shall submit to the Secretary, not later than June 30 
     of each fiscal year thereafter in which the State or tribe 
     carries out activities with grant funds provided under this 
     subpart, a report on the application of the indicators 
     established under paragraph (1) to such activities. The 
     reports shall include an explanation regarding why the 
     specific indicators used were chosen, how such indicators are 
     expected to impact a child's safety, permanence, well-being, 
     and parental recovery, and the results (as of the date of 
     submission of the report) of the evaluation conducted under 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(D) Final report.--Not later than September 30, 2005, 
     each eligible State and Indian tribe with an approved plan 
     under this part shall submit a final report on the 
     evaluations conducted under subparagraph (B) and the progress 
     made in achieving the goals specified in the plan of the 
     State or Indian tribe.
       ``(E) Failure to report.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), an eligible 
     State or Indian tribe that fails to submit the reports 
     required under this paragraph or to conduct the evaluation 
     required under subparagraph (B) shall not be eligible to 
     receive grant funds provided under this subpart for the 
     fiscal year following the fiscal year in which such State or 
     Indian tribe failed to submit such report or conduct such 
     evaluation.
       ``(ii) Corrective action.--An eligible State or Indian 
     tribe to which clause (i) applies may, notwithstanding such 
     clause, receive grant funds under this subpart for a 
     succeeding fiscal year if prior to September 30 of the fiscal 
     year in which such failure occurred, the State agencies of 
     the eligible State, or the Indian tribe, submit to the 
     Secretary a plan to monitor and evaluate in a timely manner 
     the activities conducted with such funds, and such plan is 
     approved in a timely manner by the Secretary, after 
     consultation with the Administration for Children and 
     Families and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
     Administration.
       ``(b) Secretarial Reports and Evaluations.--
       ``(1) Annual reports.--On the basis of reports submitted 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and 
     Families and the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and 
     Mental Health Services Administration, shall report annually, 
     beginning on October 1, 2002, to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Finance of the Senate on the joint activities conducted with 
     funds provided under grants made under this subpart, the 
     indicators that have been established, and the progress that 
     has been made in addressing the needs of families with 
     alcohol and drug abuse problems who come to the attention of 
     the child welfare system and in achieving the goals of child 
     safety, permanence, and family stability.
       ``(2) Evaluations.--Not later than 6 months after the end 
     of each 5-year funding cycle under this subpart, the 
     Secretary shall submit a report to the committees described 
     in paragraph (1) that summarizes the results of the 
     evaluations conducted by eligible States and Indian tribes 
     under subsection (a)(5)(B), as reported by such States and 
     Indian tribes in accordance with subparagraphs (C) and (D) of 
     subsection (a)(5). The Secretary shall include in the report 
     required under this paragraph recommendations for further 
     legislative or administrative actions that are designed to 
     assist children and families with alcohol and drug abuse 
     problems who come to the attention of the child welfare 
     system.''.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am here to talk about our 
Nation's most vulnerable children--those innocent kids who are in the 
child protection system because they have been abused or neglected by 
parents, many of whom have drug or alcohol problems. Over 500,000 
children are in foster care nationwide and 3,000 children are in West 
Virginia. Each one deserves a safe, permanent home according to the 
fundamental guidelines set by the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act.
  National statistics range between 40 percent and 80 percent of 
families in the child welfare system struggling with alcohol or drug 
abuse, or both. One recent survey noted that 67 percent of the parents 
involved in child abuse or neglect cases needed alcohol or drug 
treatment, but only one-third of those parents got the appropriate 
treatment or services to deal with their addiction. In my own state of 
West Virginia, over half of the children placed in foster care have 
families with alcohol or drug abuse problems, and we know even more 
children are at risk of neglect, but are not in foster care yet because 
of their parent's substance abuse problems.
  Another sad, stunning statistic is that children with open child 
welfare cases whose parents have substance abuse problems are younger 
than other children in foster care, and they are more likely to be the 
victims of severe and chronic neglect. Once such children are placed in 
foster care, they tend to stay in care longer than other children.
  I believe the only way to achieve the critical goals of a safe, 
healthy, and permanent home for every child is to tackle the problem of 
alcohol and drug abuse among parents. What happens to parents who abuse 
alcohol or drugs ultimately will decide that child's fate. To help the 
child, we must address the addiction of their parents.
  The issue of alcohol and drug abuse is difficult. Part of the 1997 
Adoption and Safe Families Act required the Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS) to study this problem within the child welfare 
system. This important report, Blending Perspectives and Building 
Common Ground, outlines our challenges. There is a lack of appropriate 
treatment and services, especially services designed to meet the needs 
of parents in the child protection system. Unfortunately, there is poor 
communication and collaboration between alcohol and drug abuse agencies 
and child protection agencies. Issues such as confidentiality, 
different definitions of who ``the client'' is, and different time 
frames for decisions make collaboration harder. For example, under the 
1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, state agencies and courts are 
expected to consider termination of parental rights if a child has been 
in foster care for 15 of 22 months. Treatment programs designed for 
single clients have different time frames.
  To address the challenge, we must find new ways to encourage these 
two independent systems to work together on behalf of parents with an 
alcohol or drug problem and their children. In addition to treating the 
patient's addiction, we must also provide for the needs of their child.

  Therefore, we need to create incentives for both agencies to consider 
the total picture--What are the child's needs? What are the parent's 
needs? How can we effectively serve both, and meet the fundamental 
goals of the Adoption Law that every child deserves a safe, healthy, 
permanent home.
  The HHS report sets five priorities. First, it calls for building 
collaborative working relationships among agencies. It stresses that 
addiction is a treatable disease, but access to timely, comprehensive 
substance abuse treatment services is key. Keeping clients in treatment 
is crucial, but serving parents is harder because services must also be 
available to their children. As mentioned, children of abusing parents 
need special services. The final priority

[[Page S2750]]

in the HHS study is for research and more information on the 
interaction between substance abuse and child maltreatment.
  Today, I am proud to join with my colleagues, Senator Snowe, DeWine, 
and Dodd to introduce legislation to address this troubling issue. We 
have worked for months with state officials, child advocates and 
officials in the substance abuse community to develop the Child 
Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act of 2000. This bill builds 
on the foundation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997--
fundamental goals of making a child's safety, health, and permanency 
paramount.
  To accomplish these bold goals, we need to be bold by investing in 
partnerships that will respond to the needs and priorities outlined in 
the comprehensive HHS study. I believe a new program and a new approach 
are essential. A new system is needed to address the special concerns 
of this unique population--parents with alcohol and drug problems who 
neglect their children. A program designed to serve a single male with 
drug problems doesn't respond to the needs of a mother and her child.
  To be effective, we must link child protection workers with those 
involved in alcohol and drug treatment programs. Forging new 
partnerships takes time--and it takes money. That is why our 
legislation invests $1.9 billion over 5 years to combat the problems of 
drugs and alcohol abuse in families in the child welfare system.
  I understand this is a large sum, but alcohol and drug abuse is a 
huge problem. Before reacting to the cost of the bill, consider what 
the costs are if we do nothing.
  If we do not invest in alcohol and drug abuse prevention and 
treatment for such families, children will be neglected or abused. 
Young children will be placed in foster care, at a wide range of costs, 
and they will linger there longer than other children without family 
substance abuse problems.
  In 1997, the House Ways and Means Subcommittee received testimony 
from Professor Richard Barth who noted that many newborns in substance 
abuse cases already had siblings placed in foster care. Barth estimated 
that if only one-third of the mothers with substance abuse problems got 
successful, early treatment upon the birth of their first child, 
instead of waiting until later, many years of foster care placements 
could be prevented and millions of dollars could be saved.

  Our bill is designed to tackle this tough issue so agencies do not 
wait too long to help vulnerable children. Our bill will promote 
innovative approaches that serve both parents and children. It will 
offer funding for screening and assessment to enhance prevention. It 
will support outreach to families and retention so that parents stay in 
treatment. It can support joint training, and educate alcohol and drug 
counselors about the special needs of children and the importance of a 
safe, permanent home. It can support out-patient services or 
residential treatment. It allows investments in after-care to keep 
families and children safe.
  If we do invest in such specialized alcohol and drug treatment 
programs for families, we can achieve two things. For many families, I 
hope, treatment will be successful and children will return to a safe 
and stable home. But for others, we will have tried, and learned the 
important lesson that some children need an alternate place--some 
children need adoption. Under the Adoption and Safe Families Act, 
courts cannot move forward on adoption until appropriate services have 
been provided to families. That is the law, and we must follow it. 
Therefore, to move some children towards adoption, services must be 
tried for their families.
  We want a responsible approach that will include accountability. It 
requires annual reports to assess how much progress is made each and 
every year. Reports should measure success in treating parents, but 
equally important will be measures of children's safety and family 
stability.
  Over the years, we have worked on child welfare issues in a positive, 
bipartisan manner. I am proud to continue the bipartisan approach as we 
grapple with such tough controversial issues as alcohol and drug abuse 
among parents in the child welfare system.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet and section-
by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Section-by-Section--Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act 
                                of 2000

   (A bill to amend part B of title IV of the Social Security Act to 
   create a grant program to promote joint activities among Federal, 
   State, and local public child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse 
                   prevention and treatment agencies)


  grants to promote child protection/alcohol and drug partnership for 
                                children

       In an effort to improve child safety, family stability, and 
     permanence, as well as promote recovery from alcohol and drug 
     abuse problems, the Secretary may award grants to eligible 
     States and Indian tribes to foster programs for families who 
     are known to the child welfare system to have alcohol and 
     drug abuse problems. The Secretary shall notify States and 
     Indian tribes of approval or denial not later than 60 days 
     after submission.


                        state plan requirements

       In order to meet the prevention and treatment needs of 
     families with alcohol and drug abuse problems in the child 
     welfare system and to promote child safety, permanence, and 
     family stability, State agencies will jointly work together, 
     creating a plan to identify the extent of the drug and 
     alcohol abuse problem.
       Creation of plan.--State agencies will provide data on 
     appropriate screening and assessment of cases, consultation 
     on cases involving alcohol and drug abuse, arrangements for 
     addressing confidentiality and sharing of information, cross 
     training of staff, co-location of services, support for 
     comprehensive treatment for parents and their children, and 
     priority of child welfare families for assessment or 
     treatment.
       Identify activities.--A description of the activities and 
     goals to be implemented under the five-year funding cycle 
     should be identified, such as: identify and assess alcohol 
     and drug treatment needs, identify risks to children's safety 
     and the need for permanency, enroll families in appropriate 
     services and treatment in their communities, and regularly 
     assess the progress of families receiving such treatment.
       Implement prevention and treatment services.--States and 
     Indian tribes should implement individualized alcohol and 
     drug abuse prevention and treatment services that are 
     available, accessible, and appropriate that include the 
     following components:
       (A) Preventive and early intervention services for the 
     children of families with alcohol and drug abuse problems 
     that integrate alcohol and drug abuse prevention services 
     with mental health and domestic violence services, as well as 
     recognizing the mental, emotional, and developmental problems 
     the children may experience.
       (B) Prevention and early intervention services for parents 
     at risk for alcohol and drug abuse problems.
       (C) Comprehensive home-based, our-patient and residential 
     treatment options.
       (D) Formal and informal after-care support for families in 
     recovery.
       (E) Services and programs that promote parent-child 
     interaction.
       Sharing information among agencies.--Agencies should 
     eliminate existing barriers to treatment and to child safety 
     and permanence by sharing information among agencies and 
     learning from the various treatment protocols of other 
     agencies such as:
       (A) Creating effective engagement and retention strategies.
       (B) Encouraging joint training of child welfare staff and 
     alcohol and drug abuse prevention agencies, and judges and 
     court staff to increase awareness and understanding of drug 
     abuse and related child abuse and neglect and more accurately 
     identify abuse in families, increase staff knowledge of the 
     services and resources that are available in the communities, 
     and increase awareness of permanence for children and the 
     urgency for time lines in making these decisions.
       (C) Improving data systems to monitor the progress of 
     families, evaluate service and treatment outcomes, and 
     determine which approaches are most effective.
       (D) Evaluation strategies to identify the effectiveness of 
     treatment that has the greatest impact on families in 
     different circumstances.
       (E) Training and technical assistance to increase the 
     State's capacity to perform the above activities.
       Plan descriptions and assurances.--States and Indian tribes 
     should create a plan that includes the following descriptions 
     and assurances:
       (A) A description of the jurisdictions in the State whether 
     urban, suburban, or rural, and the State's plan to expand 
     activities over the 5-year funding cycle to other parts of 
     the State.
       (B) A description of the way in which the State agency will 
     measure progress, including how the agency will jointly 
     conduct an evaluation of the results of the activities.
       (C) A description of the input obtained from staff of State 
     agencies, advocates, consumers of prevention and treatment 
     services, line staff from public and private child welfare 
     and drug abuse agencies, judges and court staff, 
     representatives of health, mental health, domestic violence, 
     housing and employment services, as well as a representative 
     of the State agency in charge of administering the temporary 
     assistance to needy families program (TANF).

[[Page S2751]]

       (D) An assurance of coordination with other services 
     provided under other Federal or federally assisted programs 
     including health, mental health, domestic violence, housing, 
     employment programs, TANF, and other child welfare and 
     alcohol and drug abuse programs and the courts.
       (E) An assurance that not more than 10% of expenditures 
     under the State plan for any fiscal year shall be for 
     administrative costs. However, Indian tribes will be exempt 
     from this limitation and instead may use the indirect cost 
     rate agreement in effect for the tribe.
       (F) An assurance from States that Federal funds provided 
     will not be used to supplant Federal or non-Federal funds for 
     services and activities provided as of the date of the 
     submission of the plan. However, Indian tribes will be exempt 
     from this provision.
       Amendments.--A State or Indian tribe may amend its plan, in 
     whole or in part at any time through a plan amendment. The 
     amendment should be submitted to the Secretary not later than 
     30 days after the date of any changes of activities. Approval 
     from the Secretary shall be presumed unless, the State has 
     been notified of disapproval within 60 days after receipt.
       Special Application to Indian tribes.--The Indian tribe 
     must submit a plan to the Secretary that describes the 
     activities it will undertake with both the child welfare and 
     alcohol and drug agencies that serve its children to address 
     the needs of families who come to the attention of the child 
     welfare agency who have alcohol and drug problems. The Indian 
     tribe must also meet other applicable requirements, unless 
     the Secretary determines that it would be inappropriate based 
     on the tribe's resources, needs, and other circumstances.


                         appropriation of funds

       Appropriations.--A total of 1.9 billion dollars will be 
     appropriated to eligible States and Indian tribes at the 
     progression rate of:
       (1) for fiscal year 2001, $200,000,000;
       (2) for fiscal year 2002, $275,000,000;
       (3) for fiscal year 2003, $375,000,000;
       (4) for fiscal year 2004, $475,000,000; and
       (5) for fiscal year 2005, $575,000,000.
       Territories.--The Secretary of HHS shall reserve 2% of the 
     amount appropriated each fiscal year for payments to Puerto 
     Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, 
     and the Northern Mariana Islands. In addition, the Secretary 
     shall reserve from 3 to 5 percent of the amount appropriated 
     for direct payment to Indian tribes.
       Research and Training.--The Secretary shall reserve 1% of 
     the appropriated amount for each fiscal year for practice-
     based research on the effectiveness of various approaches for 
     screening, assessment, engagement, treatment, retention, and 
     monitoring of families and training of staff in such areas. 
     In addition, the Secretary will also ensure that a portion of 
     these funds are used for research on the effectiveness of 
     these approaches for Indian children and the training of 
     staff.
       Determination of use of funds.--Funds may only be used to 
     carry out a specific research agenda established by the 
     Secretary, together with the Assistant Secretary of the 
     Administration for Children and Families and the 
     Administrator of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
     Administration with input from public and private nonprofit 
     providers, consumers, representatives of the Indian tribes 
     and advocates.


                           payments to states

       Amount of grant to State and territories.--Each eligible 
     State will receive an amount based on the number of children 
     under the age of 18 that reside in that State. There will be 
     a small state minimum of .05% to ensure that all States are 
     eligible for sufficient funding to establish a program.
       Amount of grant to Indian tribes or tribal organizations.--
     Indian tribes shall be eligible for a set aside of 3% to 5%. 
     This amount will be distributed based on the population of 
     children under 18 in the tribe.
       State matching requirement.--States shall provide, through 
     non-Federal contributions, the following applicable 
     percentages for a given fiscal year:
       (A) for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, 15% match;
       (B) for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, 20% match; and
       (C) for fiscal year 2005, 25% match.
       Source of match.--The non-Federal contributions required of 
     States may be in cash or in-kind, including plant equipment 
     or services made directly from donations from public or 
     private entities. Amounts received from the Federal 
     Government may not be included in the applicable percentage 
     of contributions for a given fiscal year. However, Indian 
     tribes may use three Federal sources of matching funds: 
     Indian Child Welfare Act funds, Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act funds, and Community Block Grant 
     funds.
       Waiver.--The Secretary may modify matching funds if it is 
     determined that extraordinary economic conditions in the 
     State justify the waiver. Indians tribes' matching funds may 
     also be modified if the Secretary determines that it would be 
     inappropriate based on the resources and needs of the tribe.
       Use of Funds and Deadline for Request of Payment.--Funds 
     may only be used to carry out activities specified in the 
     plan, as approved by the Secretary. Each State or Indian 
     tribe shall apply to be paid funds not later than the 
     beginning of the fourth quarter of a fiscal year or they will 
     be reallotted.
       Carryover and Reallotment of funds.--Funds paid to an 
     eligible State or Indian tribe may be used in that fiscal 
     year or the succeeding fiscal year. If a State does not apply 
     for funds allotted within the time provided, the funds will 
     be reallocated to one or more eligible States on the basis 
     of the needs of that individual state. In the cases of 
     Indian tribes, funds will be reallotted to remaining 
     tribes that are implementing approved plans.


                        performance measurement

       Establishment of Indicators.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Assistant Secretary for the 
     Administration for Children and Families, the Administrator 
     of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
     Administration within HHS, and with state and local 
     government, public officials responsible for administering 
     child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse prevention and 
     treatment programs, court staff, consumers of the services, 
     and advocates for these children and parents will establish 
     indicators within 12 months of the enactment of this law 
     which will be used to assess the performance of States and 
     Indian tribes. A State or Indian tribe will be measured 
     against itself, assessing progress over time against a 
     baseline established at the time the grant activities were 
     undertaken.
       Illustrative Examples.--Indicators of activities to be 
     measured include:
       (A) Improve screening and assessment of families;
       (B) Increase availability of comprehensive individualized 
     treatment;
       (C) Increase the number/proportion of families who enter 
     treatment promptly;
       (D) Increase engagement and retention;
       (E) Decrease the number of children who re-enter foster 
     care after being returned to families who had alcohol or drug 
     problems;
       (F) Increase number/proportion of staff trained; and
       (G) Increase the proportion of parents who complete 
     treatment and show improvement in their employment status.
       Reports.--The child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse and 
     treatment agencies in each eligible state, and the Indian 
     tribes that receive funds shall submit no later than the end 
     of the first fiscal year, a report to the Secretary 
     describing activities carried out, and any changes in the use 
     of the funds planned for the succeeding fiscal year. After 
     the first report is submitted, a State or Indian tribe must 
     submit to the Secretary annually, by the end of the third 
     quarter in the fiscal year, a report on the application of 
     the indicators to its activities, an explanation of why these 
     indicators were chosen, and the results of the evaluation to 
     date. After the third year of the grant all of the States 
     must include indicators that address improvements in 
     treatment. A final report on evaluation and the progress made 
     must be submitted to the Secretary not later than the end of 
     each five year funding cycle of the grant.
       Penalty.--States or Indian tribes that fail to report on 
     the indicators will not be eligible for grant funds for the 
     fiscal year following the one in which it failed to report, 
     unless a plan for improving their ability to monitor and 
     evaluate their activities is submitted to the Secretary and 
     then approved in a timely manner.
       Secretarial reports and evaluations.--Beginning October 1, 
     2002, the Secretary, in consultation with the Assistant 
     Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, 
     and the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental 
     Health Services Administration, shall report annually, to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House of the 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate on 
     the joint activities, indicators, and progress made with 
     families.
       Evaluations.--Not later than six months after the end of 
     each 5 year funding cycle, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to the above committees, the results of the 
     evaluations as well as recommendations for further 
     legislative actions.

                               Fact Sheet

       The Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act of 
     2000 is a bill to create a grant program to promote joint 
     activities among Federal, State, and local public child 
     welfare and alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment 
     agencies to improve child safety, family stability, and 
     permanence for children in families with drug and alcohol 
     problems, as well as promote recovery from drug and alcohol 
     problems.
       Child welfare agencies estimate that only a third of the 
     67% of the parents who need drug or alcohol prevention and 
     treatment services actually get help today. This bill builds 
     on the foundation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 
     1997 which requires States to focus on a child's need for 
     safety, health and permanence. The bill creates new funding 
     for alcohol and drug treatment and other activities that will 
     serve the special needs of these families to either provide 
     treatment for parents with alcohol and drug abuse problems so 
     that a child can safely return to their family or to promote 
     timely decisions and fulfill the requirement of the 1997 
     Adoption Act to provide services prior to adoption.


    grants to promote child protection/alcohol and drug partnerships

       In an effort to improve child safety, family stability, and 
     permanence as well as promote recovery from alcohol and drug 
     abuse problems, HHS will award grants to States and

[[Page S2752]]

     Indian tribes to encourage programs for families who are 
     known to the child welfare system and have alcohol and drug 
     abuse problems. Such grants will forge new and necessary 
     partnerships between the child protection agencies and the 
     alcohol and drug prevention and treatment agencies in States 
     so they can together provide necessary services for this 
     unique population.
       These grants will help build new partnerships to provide 
     alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment services that 
     are timely, available, accessible, and appropriate and 
     include the following components:
       (A) Preventive and early intervention services for the 
     children of families with alcohol and drug problems that 
     combine alcohol and drug prevention services with mental 
     health and domestic violence services, and recognize the 
     mental, emotional, and developmental problems the children 
     may experience.
       (B) Prevention and early intervention services for families 
     at risk of alcohol and drug problems.
       (C) Comprehensive home-based, out-patient and residential 
     treatment options.
       (D) Formal and informal after-care support for families in 
     recovery that promote child safety and family stability.
       (E) Services and supports that promote positive parent-
     child interaction.


                        forging new partnerships

       GAO and HHS studies indicate that the existing programs for 
     alcohol and drug treatment do not effectively service 
     families in the child protection system. Therefore, this new 
     grant program will help eliminate barriers to treatment and 
     to child safety and permanence by encouraging agencies build 
     partnerships and conduct joint activities including:
       (A) Promote appropriate screening and assessment of alcohol 
     and drug problems.
       (B) Create effective engagement and retention strategies 
     that get families into timely treatment.
       (C) Encourage joint training for staff of child welfare and 
     alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment agencies, and 
     judges and other court personnel to increase understanding of 
     alcohol and drug problems related to child abuse and neglect 
     and to more accurately identify alcohol and drug abuse in 
     families. Such training increases staff knowledge of the 
     appropriate resources that are available in the communities, 
     and increases awareness of the importance of permanence for 
     children and the urgency for expedited time lines in making 
     these decisions.
       (D) Improve data systems to monitor the progress of 
     families, evaluate service and treatment outcomes, and 
     determine which approaches are most effective.
       (E) Evaluate strategies to identify the effectiveness of 
     treatment and those parts of the treatment that have the 
     greatest impact on families in different circumstances.


                       new, targeted investments

       A total of $1.9 billion will be available to eligible 
     States with funding of $200 million in the first year 
     expanding to $575 million by the last year. The amount of 
     funding will be based on the State's number of children under 
     18, with a small State minimum to ensure that every State 
     gets a fair share. Indian tribes will have a 3%-5% set aside. 
     State child welfare and alcohol and drug agencies shall have 
     a modest matching requirement for funding beginning with a 
     15% match and gradually increasing to 25%. The Secretary has 
     discretion to waive the State match in cases of hardship.


               accountability and performance measurement

       To ensure accountability, HHS and the related State 
     agencies must establish indicators within 12 months of the 
     enactment of this law which will be used to assess the 
     State's progress under this program. Annual reports by the 
     States must be submitted to HHS. Any state hat fails to 
     submit its report will lose its funding for the next year, 
     until it comes into compliance. HHS must issue an annual 
     report to Congress on the progress of the Child Protection/
     Alcohol and Drug Partnership grants.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM:
  S. 2436. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the targeted area limitation on the expense deduction for environmental 
remediation costs and to extend the termination date of such deduction; 
to the Committee on Finance.


                  brownfield cleanup cost recovery act

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Brownfield Cleanup Cost Recovery Act. This legislation would repeal the 
targeted area limitation on the expense deduction for environmental 
remediation costs and extend the termination date of such deduction to 
2004.
  Mr. President, the Environmental Protection Agency's brownfields 
program is designed to help communities restore less seriously 
contaminated sites that have the potential for economic development. 
Brownfields are defined as abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial 
and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is 
complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.
  In general, costs incurred for new buildings or for permanent 
improvements to increase the value of a property must be capitalized--
the cost must be deducted over a period of years. Some expenses, such 
as repairs, are currently deductible--deductible in the year in which 
the cost is incurred. This is also called expensing. It is a 
considerable financial advantage to be able to fully deduct an expense 
in one year rather than over many. The brownfields tax provision would 
include environmental remediation costs as allowable costs for 
expensing. This would create the financial incentive needed to bring 
companies in to remediate brownfields.
  Prior to the passage of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, the tax code 
discouraged the remediation of environmentally damaged property. In 
1996, I introduced legislation to eliminate this bias. This legislation 
ultimately was included as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, 
which is now law. However, the incentive expires at the end of this 
year. As part of the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, Congress 
passed provisions expanding upon this important community development 
legislation. This bill contains the same provisions that were included 
in the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, which Congress passed, 
but President Clinton vetoed.
  In addition, Mr. President, current law limits expensing of 
brownfield sites to those sites within ``targeted'' areas--defined as 
being a renewal community under section 198. This bill would eliminate 
the ``targeted area'' limitation, allowing for increased remediation in 
all areas, not just federal designated zones.
  Mr. President, encouraging community renewal has long been a very 
important issue to me. In 1995, my first year as a Senator, I joined 
with Senators Lieberman, Santorum, DeWine and Moseley-Braun, to 
introduce the Enhanced Enterprise Zones Act, to stimulate job creation 
and residential growth in America's most distressed rural and urban 
communities. More recently, Senator Lieberman and I introduced the 
American Community Renewal Act. The ACRA would provide benefits to 100 
distressed communities around the country, including tax benefits 
designed to attract businesses and employers to Renewal Zones. It is my 
hope that this bill will become law this year.
  In my opinion, Mr. President, brownfield remediation is a crucial 
component of any policy for community renewal if that policy is to be 
successful. The provisions provided in this legislation will make such 
remediation more likely and more common. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to give it their strong support.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 2437. A bill to provide for the conservation and development of 
water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of 
the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


                water resources development act of 2000

 Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2437

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.--

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2000''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Comprehensive Everglades restoration plan.
Sec. 4. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 5. Brownfields Revitalization Program.
Sec. 6. Tribal Partnership Program.
Sec. 7. Ability to pay.
Sec. 8. Property Protection Program.
Sec. 9. National Recreation Reservation Service.
Sec. 10. Operation and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities.
Sec. 11. Interagency and international support.
Sec. 12. Reburial and transfer authority.

[[Page S2753]]

Sec. 13. Amendment to Rivers and Harbors Act.
Sec. 14. Structural flood control cost-sharing.
Sec. 15. Calfed Bay Delta Program assistance.
Sec. 16. Project de-authorizations.
Sec. 17. Floodplain management requirements.
Sec. 18. Transfer of project lands.
Sec. 19. Puget Sound and Adjacent waters restoration.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

       In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     the Army.

     SEC. 3. COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Central and southern florida project.--The term 
     ``Central and Southern Florida Project'' means the project 
     for Central and Southern Florida authorized under the heading 
     ``Central and southern florida'' in section 203 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1176), any modification to the 
     project authorized by law, or modified by the Comprehensive 
     Everglades Restoration Plan.
       (2) South florida ecosystem.--The term ``South Florida 
     ecosystem'' means the area consisting of the lands and waters 
     within the boundary, existing on July 1, 1999, of the South 
     Florida Water Management District, including the Everglades 
     ecosystem, the Florida Keys, Biscayne Bay, Florida Bay, and 
     other contiguous near-shore coastal waters of South Florida.
       (3) Comprehensive everglades restoration plan.--The term 
     ``Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan'' means the plan 
     contained in the ``Final Feasibility Report and Programmatic 
     Environmental Impact Statement,'' April 1999, as transmitted 
     to the Congress by the July 1, 1999, letter of the Assistant 
     Secretary of the Army for Civil Works pursuant to Section 528 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
     3767).
       (4) Natural system.--The term ``natural system'' means all 
     Federally or state managed lands and waters within the South 
     Florida ecosystem, including the water conservation areas, 
     Everglades National Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, and 
     other federally or state designated conservation lands, and 
     other lands that create or contribute to habitat supporting 
     native flora and fauna.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) The Everglades is an American treasure. In its natural 
     state, the South Florida ecosystem was connected by the flow 
     of fresh water from the Kissimmee River to Lake Okeechobee--
     south through vast freshwater marshes known as the 
     Everglades--to Florida Bay, and on to the coral reefs of the 
     Florida Keys. The South Florida ecosystem covers 
     approximately 18,000 square miles and once included a unique 
     and biologically productive region, supporting vast colonies 
     of wading birds, a mixture of temperate and tropical plant 
     and animal species, and teeming coastal fisheries and North 
     America's only barrier coral reef. The South Florida 
     ecosystem is endangered as a result of adverse changes in the 
     quantity, distribution, and timing of flows and degradation 
     of water quality. The Everglades alone has been reduced 
     in size by approximately 50 percent. Restoration of this 
     nationally and internationally recognized ecosystem, 
     including America's Everglades, is in the Nation's 
     interest.
       (2) The Central and Southern Florida Project plays an 
     important role in the economy of south Florida by providing 
     flood protection and water supply to agriculture and the 
     residents of south Florida and providing water to the water 
     conservation areas, Everglades National Park and other 
     natural areas for the purpose of preserving fish and wildlife 
     resources. The population of the region is expected to 
     continue to grow, further straining the ability of the 
     existing Central and Southern Florida Project to meet the 
     needs of the natural system and the people of south Florida.
       (3) Modifications to the Central and Southern Florida 
     Project are needed to restore, preserve, and protect the 
     South Florida ecosystem, including the Everglades, while 
     continuing to provide for the water related needs of the 
     region, including flood protection and other objectives 
     served by the Project.
       (4) The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is a 
     scientifically and economically sound plan that modifies the 
     Central and Southern Florida Project to restore, preserve and 
     protect the South Florida ecosystem. By storing most of the 
     water currently discharged to the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of 
     Mexico, ensuring the quality of water discharged into the 
     South Florida ecosystem from project features, and removing 
     internal levees and canals in the Everglades, the 
     Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan provides the 
     roadmap for the recovery of a healthy, sustainable ecosystem 
     as well as providing for the other water-related needs of the 
     region, including flood protection, the enhancement of water 
     supplies, and other objectives served by the Central and 
     Southern Florida Project.
       (5) The comprehensive, system-wide nature of the 
     Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and the linkage of 
     the elements of the plan to each other must be preserved not 
     only during the over 25-year period that will be necessary 
     for its implementation, but for as long as the project 
     remains authorized. Implementation must proceed in a 
     programmatic manner using the principles of adaptive 
     assessment as outlined in the Comprehensive Everglades 
     Restoration Plan.
       (6) The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan contains 
     a number of components that will benefit Everglades National 
     Park, Biscayne National Park, Florida Keys National Marine 
     Sanctuary, Big Cypress National Preserve, Ten Thousand 
     Islands National Wildlife Refuge, and Loxahatchee National 
     Wildlife Refuge by significantly improving the quantity, 
     quality, timing, and distribution of waste delivered to these 
     Federal areas. Improved water deliveries will also provide 
     benefits to federally-listed threatened and endangered 
     species.
       (7) The Congress, the Federal government, and the State of 
     Florida have, in prior legislation, recognized the need to 
     restore, preserve, and protect the South Florida ecosystem, 
     These on-going efforts are important to the success of the 
     Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Since the creation 
     of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force in 
     1993, the Federal government has been working in partnership 
     with tribal, state, and local governments, the private 
     sector, and individual citizens to accomplish restoration of 
     the South Florida ecosystem. It is important for the long-
     term restoration of this ecosystem that these efforts, 
     including the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, 
     be continued and strengthened. The state, with its financial 
     responsibilities for project implementation and capabilities 
     in the planning, design, construction, and operation of the 
     Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, must be a full 
     partner with the Federal government.
       (c) Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Congress hereby approves the Comprehensive 
     Everglades Restoration Plan to modify the Central and 
     Southern Florida Project to restore, preserve, and protect 
     the South Florida ecosystem. These changes are necessary in 
     order to ensure that the Central and Southern Florida Project 
     as amended provides for the improvement and protection of 
     water quality in, and the reduction of the loss of fresh 
     water from, the South Florida ecosystem, as well as providing 
     for the water related needs of the region, including flood 
     protection, the enhancement of water supplies, and other 
     objectives served by the Central and Southern Florida 
     Project.
       (2) Specific authorizations.--
       (A) In general.--Those projects included in the 
     Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and specified in 
     paragraphs (B) and (C) are authorized to be carried out by 
     the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and 
     subject to the conditions described in the Central and 
     Southern Florida Project: Comprehensive Review Study Report 
     of the Chief of Engineers dated June 22, 1999.
       (B) Pilot projects.--The following pilot projects are 
     authorized for implementation, after review and approval by 
     the Secretary, at a total cost of $69,000,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $34,500,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $34,500,000:
       (1) Caloosahatchee River (C-43) Basin ASR ($6,000,000);
       (2) Lake Belt In-Ground Reservoir Technology ($23,000,000);
       (3) L-31N Seepage Management (10,000,000); and,
       (4) Wastewater Reuse Technology ($30,000,000).
       (C) Other projects.--The following projects are authorized 
     at a total cost of $1,100,918,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $550,459,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $550,459,000. Prior to implementation of projects (1) through 
     (10), the Secretary shall review and approve a Project 
     Implementation Report prepared in accordance with subsection 
     (g).
       (1) C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir ($112,562,000);
       (2) Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoirs--Phase 
     I ($233,408,000);
       (3) Site 1 Impoundment ($38,535,000);
       (4) Water Conservation Areas 3A/3B Levee Seepage Management 
     ($100,335,000);
       (5) C-11 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area 
     ($124,837,000);
       (6) C-9 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area 
     ($89,146,000);
       (7) Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Storage and Treatment Area 
     ($104,027,000);
       (8) Raise and Bridge East Portion of Tamiami Trail and Fill 
     Miami Canal within Water Conservation Area 3 ($26,946,000);
       (9) North New River Improvements ($77,087,000);
       (10) C-111 Spreader Canal ($94,035,000); and
       (11) Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Program (10 years) 
     ($100,000,000).
       (d) Additional Program Authority.--In order to expedite 
     implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 
     Plan, the Secretary is authorized to implement modifications 
     to the Central and Southern Florida Project that are 
     consistent with the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 
     and that will produce independent and substantial 
     restoration, preservation, or protection benefits to the 
     South Florida ecosystem; provided that the total Federal 
     cost of each project accomplished under this authority 
     shall not exceed $35,000,000; and provided further that 
     the total Federal cost of all the projects accomplished 
     under this authority shall not exceed $250,000,000. Prior 
     to implementation of any project authorized under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall review and approve a 
     Project Implementation

[[Page S2754]]

     Report prepared in accordance with subsection (g).
       (e) Authorization of Future Project Features.--Except for 
     those projects authorized in subsections (c) and (d), all 
     future projects included in the Comprehensive Everglades 
     Restoration Plan shall require a specific authorization of 
     Congress. Prior to authorization, the Secretary shall 
     transmit such projects to Congress along with a Project 
     Implementation Report prepared in accordance with subsection 
     (g). Further, such projects, if authorized, shall be 
     implemented pursuant to subsection (i) of this section.
       (f) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     implementing projects authorized under subsections (c), (d), 
     and (e) shall be 50 percent. The non-Federal sponsor shall be 
     responsible for all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and 
     relocations and shall be afforded credit toward the non-
     Federal share in accordance with paragraph (3)(A). The non-
     Federal sponsor may accept Federal funding for the purchase 
     of the necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way or 
     relocations, provided that such assistance is credited toward 
     the Federal share of the cost of the project.
       (2) Operation and maintenance.--Notwithstanding section 
     528(e)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, the 
     non-Federal sponsor shall be responsible for sixty percent of 
     the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and 
     rehabilitation cost of activities authorized under this 
     section.
       (3) Credit and reimbursement.--
       (A) Lands.--Regardless of the date of acquisition, the 
     value of lands or interests in land acquired by non-Federal 
     interests for any activity required in this section shall be 
     included in the total cost of the activity and credited 
     against the non-Federal share of the cost of the activity. 
     Such value shall be determined by the Secretary.
       (B) Work.--The Secretary may provide credit, including in-
     kind credit, to or reimburse the non-Federal project sponsor 
     for the reasonable cost of any work performed in connection 
     with a study or activity necessary for the implementation of 
     the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is necessary and the 
     credit or reimbursement is granted for work completed during 
     the period of design or implementation pursuant to an 
     agreement between the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor 
     that prescribes the terms and conditions of the credit or 
     reimbursement.
       (C) Audits.--Credit or reimbursement for land or work 
     granted under this subsection shall be subject to audit by 
     the Secretary.
       (g) Evaluation of Project Features.--
       (1) In general.--Prior to implementation of project 
     features authorized in subsection (c)(2)(C)(1) through 
     (c)(2)(C)(10) and subsection (d), the Secretary, in 
     cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor, shall, after notice 
     and opportunity for public comment, complete Project 
     Implementation Reports to address the project(s) cost 
     effectiveness, engineering feasibility, and potential 
     environmental impacts, including National Environmental 
     Policy Act compliance. The Secretary shall coordinate with 
     appropriate Federal, tribal, state and local governments 
     during the development of such reports and shall identify any 
     additional water that will be made available for the natural 
     system, existing legal users, and other water related needs 
     of the region. Further, such reports shall ensure that each 
     project feature is consistent with the programmatic 
     regulations issued pursuant to subsection (i).
       (2) Project justification.--Notwithstanding section 209 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other 
     provision of law regarding economic justification, in 
     carrying out activities authorized in accordance with 
     subsections (c), (d), and (e), the Secretary may determine 
     that activities are justified by the environmental benefits 
     derived by the South Florida ecosystem in general and the 
     Everglades and Florida Bay in particular; and shall not need 
     further economic justification if the Secretary determines 
     that the activities are cost effective.
       (h) Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuals.--
       (1) In general.--Socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals and communities make up a large portion of the 
     South Florida ecosystem and have legitimate interests in the 
     implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 
     Plan. Further, such groups have not, in some cases, been 
     given the opportunity to understand and participate fully in 
     the development of water resources projects. As provided in 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall ensure that impacts on 
     socially and economically disadvantaged individuals are 
     considered during the implementation of the Comprehensive 
     Everglades Restoration Plan and that such individuals have 
     opportunities to review and comment on its implementation.
       (2) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (A) Small business concern.--The term ``small business 
     concern'' has the meaning such term has under section 3 of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
       (B) Socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.--
     The term ``socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals'' has the meaning such term has under section 
     8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) and 
     relevant subcontracting regulations promulgated pursuant 
     thereto.
       (3) Program for socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals.--The Secretary shall establish a program to 
     ensure that socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals within the South Florida ecosystem are informed 
     of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, given the 
     opportunity to review and comment on each project feature, 
     provided opportunities to participate as a small business 
     concern contractor, and given opportunities for employment or 
     internships in emerging industry sectors.
       (4) Contracts to businesses owned by socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a goal that not less than 10 percent of the amounts 
     made available for construction of projects authorized 
     pursuant to subsections (c), (d) and (e), shall be expended 
     with small business concerns owned and controlled by socially 
     and economically disadvantaged individuals within the South 
     Florida ecosystem.
       (i) Assuring Project Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--The primary and overarching purpose of the 
     Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is to restore, 
     preserve and protect the natural system within the South 
     Florida ecosystem. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 
     Plan shall be implemented to ensure the protection of water 
     quality in, the reduction of the loss of fresh water from, 
     and the improvement of the environment of the South Florida 
     ecosystem, while providing for other water-related needs of 
     the region, including water supply and flood protection. The 
     Central and Southern Florida Project, as amended by the 
     Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, shall be 
     implemented in a manner that ensures that the benefits to the 
     natural system and the human environment, including the 
     proper quantity, quality, timing and distribution of 
     water, are achieved and maintained for as long as the 
     Central and Southern Florida Project remains authorized. 
     When implemented fully, the approximately 68 features of 
     the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan will result 
     in modifications to the existing Central and Southern 
     Florida Project works that shall provide the water 
     necessary to restore, preserve and protect the natural 
     system while providing for other water related needs of 
     the region. The Secretary shall ensure that both the 
     natural system and the human environment receive the 
     benefits intended when such modifications to the Central 
     and Southern Florida project are made pursuant to the 
     Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and previous 
     Acts of Congress.
       (2) Dedication and management of water--
       (A) In general.--Consistent with subsection (i)(2)(B), the 
     Secretary shall dedicate and manage the water made available 
     from the Central and Southern Florida Project features 
     authorized, constructed, and operated in accordance with 
     previous Acts of Congress and this Act authorizing the 
     implementation of features of the Comprehensive Everglades 
     Restoration Plan, for the temporal and spatial needs of the 
     natural system. The needs of the natural system and the human 
     environment shall be defined in terms of quality, quantity, 
     timing and distribution of water. In developing the 
     regulations that provide for the dedication and management of 
     water for the natural system in accordance with this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall incorporate rainfall driven 
     operational criteria and annual fluctuations in rainfall.
       (B) Programmatic regulations.--The Secretary shall, after 
     notice and opportunity for public comment and with the 
     concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior, and in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
     Governor of the State of Florida, issue programmatic 
     regulations identifying the amount of water to be dedicated 
     and managed for the natural system from the Central and 
     Southern Florida Project features authorized, constructed, 
     and operated in accordance with previous acts of Congress and 
     this Act through the implementation of the Comprehensive 
     Everglades Restoration Plan features. Such regulations shall 
     be completed within two years of the date of enactment of 
     this Act. These regulations shall ensure that the natural 
     system and the human environment receive the benefits 
     intended, including benefits for the restoration, 
     preservation, and protection of the natural system, as the 
     Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is implemented and 
     incorporated into the Central and Southern Florida Project 
     for as long as the project remains authorized. Nothing in 
     this Act shall prevent the State of Florida from reserving 
     water for environmental uses under the 1972 Florida Water 
     Resources Act to the extent consistent with this section.
       (C) Project specific regulations.--The Secretary, after 
     notice and opportunity for public comment, and in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of 
     Commerce, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, other Federal agencies, and the State of Florida 
     shall develop project feature specific regulations to ensure 
     that the benefits anticipated from each feature of the 
     Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan are achieved and 
     maintained as long as the project remains authorized. Each 
     such regulation shall be consistent with the programmatic 
     regulations issued pursuant to subsection (i)(2)(B), be based 
     on the best available science, and ensure that the quantity, 
     quality, timing, and distribution of water for the natural 
     system and the human environment anticipated

[[Page S2755]]

     in the Comprehensive Plan for each project feature is 
     achieved and maintained.
       (3) Existing water uses.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     the implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades 
     Restoration Plan, including physical or operational 
     modifications to the Central and Southern Florida Project, 
     does not cause substantial adverse impacts on existing legal 
     water uses, including annual water deliveries to Everglades 
     National Park, water for the preservation of fish and 
     wildlife in the natural system, and other legal uses as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act. The Secretary shall not 
     eliminate existing legal sources of water supply, including 
     those for agricultural water supply, water for Everglades 
     National Park and the preservation of fish and wildlife, 
     until new sources of water supply of comparable quantity and 
     quality are available to replace the water to be lost from 
     existing sources. Existing authorized levels of flood 
     protection will be maintained.
       (j) Report to Congress.--Beginning on October 1, 2005, and 
     periodically thereafter until October 1, 2036, the Secretary 
     and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, in 
     consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
     Department of Commerce and the State of Florida, shall 
     jointly submit to Congress a report on the implementation of 
     the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Such reports 
     shall be completed no less than every five years. Such 
     reports shall include a description of planning, design, and 
     construction work completed, the amount of funds expended 
     during the period covered by the report, and the work 
     anticipated over the next five-year period. In addition, each 
     report shall include the determination of each Secretary, and 
     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     concerning the benefits to the natural system and the human 
     environment achieved as of the date of the report and whether 
     the completed features of the Comprehensive Everglades 
     Restoration Plan are being operated in a manner that is 
     consistent with the programmatic regulations established 
     under subsection (i)(2)(B).

     SEC. 4. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.

       Section 729 of Public Law 99-662 [100 stat. 4164] is 
     amended by--
       (a) striking ``STUDY OF WATER RESOURCES NEEDS OF RIVER 
     BASINS AND REGIONS.'' and all that follows, and
       (b) inserting in lieu thereof:

     ``WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to assess 
     the water resources needs of river basins and watersheds of 
     the United States. Such assessments shall be undertaken in 
     cooperation and coordination with the Departments of the 
     Interior, Agriculture and Commerce, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, and other appropriate agencies, and may 
     include an evaluation of ecosystem protection and 
     restoration, flood damage reduction, navigation and port 
     needs, watersheds protection, water supply, and drought 
     preparedness.
       ``(b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with 
     Federal, Tribal, State, interstate, and local governmental 
     entities in carrying out the assessments authorized by this 
     section. In conducting such assessments, the Secretary may 
     accept contributions of services, materials, supplies and 
     cash from Federal, Tribal, State, interstate, and local 
     governmental entities where the Secretary determines that 
     such contributions will facilitate completion of the 
     assessments.
       ``(c) Cost Sharing Requirements.--The non-Federal share of 
     the cost of an assessment conducted under this section shall 
     be 25 percent of the cost of such assessment. The non-Federal 
     sponsor may provide the non-Federal cost-sharing requirement 
     through the provision cash or services, materials, supplies, 
     or other in-kind services. In no event shall such credit 
     exceed the non-Federal required share of costs for the 
     assessment.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.''

     SEC. 5. BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

       (a) General.--The Secretary shall, in consultation with the 
     Environmental Protection Agency and other appropriate 
     agencies, carry out a program to provide assistance to non-
     Federal interests in the remediation and restoration of 
     abandoned or idled industrial and commercial sites where such 
     assistance will improve the quality, conservation, and 
     sustainable use of the Nation's streams, rivers, lakes, 
     wetlands, and floodplains. Assistance may be in the form of 
     site characterizations, planning, design, and construction 
     projects. To the maximum extent practicable, projects 
     implemented by the Secretary under this section will be done 
     in cooperation and coordination with other Federal, Tribal, 
     State, and local efforts to maximize resources available for 
     the remediation, restoration, and redevelopment of brownfield 
     sites.
       (b) Justification for Assistance.--Notwithstanding any 
     economic justification provision or requirement of section 
     209 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 [42 U.S.C. 1962-2] or 
     economic justification provision of any other law, the 
     Secretary may determine that the assistance projects 
     authorized by subsection (a),
       (1) is justified by the public health and safety, and 
     environmental benefits; and
       (2) shall not need further economic justification if the 
     Secretary determines that the assistance is cost effective.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) In general.--Prior to implementing any assistance 
     project under this section, the Secretary shall enter into a 
     binding agreement with the non-Federal interest, which shall 
     require the non-Federal interest to: (a) pay 50 percent of 
     the total costs of the assistance project; (b) acquire and 
     place in public ownership for so long as is necessary to 
     implement and complete the assistance project any lands, 
     easements, rights-of-way, and relocations necessary for 
     implementation and completion of the assistance project; (c) 
     pay 100 percent of any operation, maintenance, repair, 
     replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with the 
     assistance project; and (d) hold and save harmless the United 
     States free from claims or damages due to implementation of 
     the assistance project, except for the negligence of the 
     Government or its contractors.
       (2) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit 
     for the value of any lands, easements, rights-of-way, and 
     relocations provided for implementation and completion of 
     such assistance project. The Secretary also may afford credit 
     to a non-Federal interest for services, studies, supplies, 
     and other in-kind consideration where the Secretary 
     determines that such services, studies, supplies, and other 
     in-kind consideration will facilitate completion of the 
     assistance project. In no event shall such credit exceed the 
     50 percent non-Federal cost-sharing requirement.
       (d) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section shall be construed as waiving, limiting, or 
     otherwise affecting the applicability of any provision of 
     Federal or State law.
       (e) Project Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in 
     Army Civil Works Appropriations funds may be allotted under 
     this section at any single site.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriate to carry out this section $25,000,000 for 
     each fiscal year from 2002 through 2005.
       (g) Program Evaluation.--Not later than December 31, 2005, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     report that discusses the program's performance objectives 
     and evaluates is effectiveness in achieving them, along with 
     any recommendations concerning continuation of the program.

     SEC. 6. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized, in 
     cooperation with Federally recognized Indian tribes and other 
     Federal agencies, to study and determine the feasibility of 
     implementing water resources development projects that will 
     substantially benefit Indian tribes, and are located 
     primarily within Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 
     1151, or in proximity to Alaska native villages. Studies 
     conducted under this authority may address, but are not 
     limited to, projects for flood damage reduction, 
     environmental restoration and protection, and preservation of 
     cultural and natural resources.
       (b) Consultation and Coordination.--the Secretary shall 
     consult with the Secretary of the Interior on studies 
     conducted under this section in recognition of the unique 
     role of the Secretary of the Interior regarding trust 
     responsibilities with Indian tribes, and in recognition of 
     mutual trust responsibilities. the Secretary shall integrate 
     Army Civil Works activities with activities of the Department 
     of the Interior to avoid conflicts, duplications of effort, 
     or unanticipated adverse effects to Indian tribes, and shall 
     consider existing authorities and programs of the Department 
     of the Interior and other Federal agencies in any 
     recommendations regarding implementation of project studied 
     under this section.
       (c) Ability To Pay.--Any cost-sharing agreement for a study 
     under this section shall be subject to the ability of a non-
     Federal interest to pay. The ability of any non-Federal 
     interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary in 
     accordance with procedures established by the Secretary.
       (d) Credits.--For such studies conducted under this 
     section, the Secretary may afford credit to the tribe for 
     services, studies, supplies, and other in-kind consideration 
     where the Secretary determines that such services, studies, 
     supplies, and other-in-kind consideration will facilitate 
     completion of the project. In no event shall such credit 
     exceed the tribe's required share of costs for the study.
       (e) Authrorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a) of this 
     section $5,000,000 for each fiscal year, for fiscal years 
     2002 through 2006. Not more than $1,000,000 in Army Civil 
     Works appropriations may be allotted under this section for 
     any one tribe.
       (f) Definition.--For the purposes of this section the term 
     ``Indian tribes'' means any tribe, band, nation, or other 
     organized group of community of Indians, including any Alaska 
     Native village (as defined in, or established pursuant to, 
     the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C.A. 
     Sec. 1601 et seq.] which is recognized as eligible for the 
     special programs and services provided by the United States 
     to Indians because of their status as Indians.

     SEC. 7. ABILITY TO PAY.

       Section 103(m) of Public Law 99-662 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m), as 
     amended) is amended by:
       (1) Deleting subsection ``(1)'' in its entirety and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following language:

[[Page S2756]]

       ``(1) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement under this 
     section for a feasibility study or for construction of an 
     environmental protection and restoration or flood control 
     project, or for construction of an agricultural water supply 
     project, shall be subject to the ability of a non-Federal 
     interest to pay.''
       (2) Deleting subsection ``(2)'' in its entirety and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following language:
       ``(2) Criteria and procedures.--the ability of a non-
     Federal interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary 
     in accordance with criteria and procedures in effect on the 
     day before the date of the enactment of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000; except that such criteria and 
     procedures shall be revised, and new criteria and procedures 
     be developed, within 18 months after such date of enactment 
     to reflect the requirements of paragraph (3) of section 
     202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 [110 
     STAT. 3674].''
       (3) adding the word ``and'' at the end of subsection 
     (3)(A)(ii)
       (4) Deleting subsection (3)(B) in its entirety.
       (5) Deleting subsection (3)(C) in its entirety and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following language:
       ``(B) may consider additional criteria relating to the non-
     Federal interest's financial ability to carry out is cost-
     sharing responsibilities, or relating to additional 
     assistance that may be available for other Federal or State 
     sources.''

     SEC. 8. PROPERTY PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to implement a 
     program to reduce vandalism and destruction of property at 
     water resources development projects under the jurisdiction 
     of the Department of the Army. In carrying out the program 
     the Secretary may provide rewards to individuals who provide 
     information or evidence leading to the arrest and prosecution 
     of individuals causing damage to Federal property, including 
     the payment of cash rewards.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $500,000 annually to carry out this 
     section.

     SEC. 9. NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION SERVICE.

       Notwithstanding Section 611 of the Omnibus Consolidated and 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-
     277), the Secretary may participate in the National 
     Recreation Reservation Service on an interagency basis and-
     fund the Department of the Army's share of those activities 
     required for implementing, operating, and maintaining the 
     Service.

     SEC. 10. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HYDROELECTRIC 
                   FACILITIES.

       Section 314 of Public Law 101-640 (33 U.S.C. 2321) is 
     amended by inserting the following language immediately after 
     the phrase ``commercial activities'': ``where such activities 
     require specialized training related to hydroelectric power 
     generation. These activities would be subject to the labor 
     standards provisions in the Service Contract Act, 41. U.S.C. 
     351, and to the extent applicable, the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 
     U.S.C., Sections 276(a)-7.''

     SEC. 11. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.

       Section 234 of Public Law 104-303 (33 U.S.C. 2323a) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (d) by deleting ``$1,000,000'' and 
     inserting $2,000,000.

     SEC. 12. REBURIAL AND TRANSFER AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Reburial.--The Secretary is authorized, in consultation 
     with the appropriate Indian tribes, to identify and set aside 
     areas at civil works projects managed by the Secretary that 
     may be used to reinter Native American remains that have been 
     discovered on project lands, and which have been rightfully 
     claimed by a lineal descendant or Indian tribe in accordance 
     with applicable Federal law. The Secretary, in consultation 
     and in consent with the lineal descendant or the respective 
     Indian tribe, is authorized to recover and rebury the remains 
     at such sites at full Federal expense.
       (2) Transfer authority.--Notwithstanding any provision of 
     law, the Secretary is authorized to transfer to the Indian 
     tribe the land identified by the Secretary in subsection (1) 
     for use as a cemetery. The Secretary shall retain any 
     necessary rights-of-way, easements, or other property 
     interests that the Secretary of the Army determines is 
     necessary to carry out the authorized project purpose.
       (b) Definition.--For the purposes of this section the term 
     ``Indian tribe'' means any tribe, band, nation, or other 
     organized group or community of Indians, including any Alaska 
     Native village (as defined in, or established pursuant to, 
     the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C.A. 
     Sec. 1601 et seq.] which is recognized as eligible for the 
     special programs and services provided by the United States 
     to Indians because of their status as Indians.

     SEC. 13. AMENDMENT TO RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT.

       33 U.S.C. 401 is amended by adding the following language 
     at the end of the last sentence: ``The approval required by 
     this section of the location and plans, or any modification 
     of plans, for any dam or dike, applies only to any dam or 
     dike that would completely span a waterway currently used to 
     transport interstate or foreign commerce, in a manner that 
     actual, existing interstate or foreign commerce could be 
     adversely affected. Any other dam or dike proposed to be 
     built in any other navigable water of the United States shall 
     be regulated as a structure under 33 U.S.C. 403, and shall 
     not require approval under this section.''

     SEC. 14. STRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL COST-SHARING.

       (a) Section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 [100 Stat. 4084-4085] is amended by--
       (1) striking ``35'' whenever it appears in paragraph (2) 
     and inserting ``50 in lieu thereof;
       (2) deleting the word ``minimum'' in paragraph (2);
       (3) adding the following language to paragraph (2) 
     immediately after the last sentence in that paragraph: The 
     non-Federal share under paragraph (1) shall not exceed 50 
     percent of the cost of the project assigned to flood control. 
     The preceding sentence does not modify the requirement of 
     paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection.'', and
       (4) deleting paragraph (3) and (4) in their entirety.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to any project or separable element thereof with 
     respect to which the Secretary and the non-Federal interest 
     have not entered into a project cooperation agreement on or 
     before the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 15. CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to participate 
     with the appropriate Federal and State agencies in the 
     planning and management activities associated with the CALFED 
     Bay Delta Program, and shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable and in accordance with all applicable laws, 
     integrate the activities of the Army Corps of Engineers in 
     the San Joaquin and Sacramento River basins with the long-
     term goals of the CALFED Bay Delta Program.
       (b) Cooperative Activities.--In participating in the CALFED 
     Bay Delta Program as provided for in subsection (a) of this 
     section, the Secretary is authorized to accept and expend 
     funds from other Federal agencies and from non-Federal 
     public, private and non-profit entities to carry out 
     ecosystem restoration projects and activities associated with 
     the CALFED Bay Delta Program and may enter into contracts, 
     cooperative research and development agreements, and 
     cooperative agreements with Federal and non-Federal private, 
     public, and non-profit entities in carrying out these 
     projects and activities.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of the Army to carry out 
     activities under this section $5,000,000 for fiscal years 
     from 2002 through 2005.
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the area 
     covered by the CALFED Bay Delta Program is defined as the San 
     Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary and its 
     watershed (Bay-Delta Estuary) as identified in the Framework 
     Agreement Between the Governor's Water Policy Council of the 
     State of California and the Federal Ecosystem Directorate 
     (Club Fed).

     SEC. 16. PROJECT DE-AUTHORIZATIONS.

       Section 33 U.S.C. 579a is deleted in its entirety and the 
     following language inserted in lieu thereof:


                      ``project de-authorizations

       ``(a) Projects Never Under Construction.--
       ``(1) The Secretary shall transmit annually to Congress a 
     list of projects and separable elements of projects that have 
     been authorized for construction, but for which no 
     appropriations have been obligated for construction of the 
     project or separable element during the four consecutive 
     fiscal years preceding the transmittal of such list.
       ``(2) Any water resources project authorized for 
     construction, and any separable element of such a project, 
     shall be de-authorized after the last day of the 7-year 
     period beginning on the date of the project or separable 
     element's most recent authorization or reauthorization unless 
     funds have been obligated for construction of the project or 
     separable element.
       ``(b) Projects Where Construction Has Been Suspended.--
       ``(1) The Secretary shall transmit annually to Congress a 
     list of projects and separable elements of projects that have 
     been authorized for construction, and for which funds have 
     been obligated in the past for construction of the project or 
     separable element, but for which no appropriations have been 
     obligated for construction of the project or separable 
     element during the two consecutive fiscal years preceding the 
     transmittal of such list.
       ``(2) Any water resources project, and any separable 
     element of such a project, for which funds have been 
     obligated in the past for construction of the project or 
     separable element, shall be de-authorized if appropriations 
     specifically identified for construction of the project or 
     separable element (either in Statute or in the accompanying 
     legislative report language) have not been obligated for 
     construction of the project or separable element during any 
     five subsequent consecutive fiscal years.
       ``(c) Congressional Notifications.--Upon submission of the 
     lists under subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary shall 
     notify each Senator in whose State, and each Member of the 
     House of Representatives in whose district, the affected 
     project or separable element would be located.

[[Page S2757]]

       ``(d) Final De-authorization list.--The Secretary shall 
     publish annually in the Federal Register a list of all 
     projects or separable elements de-authorized under 
     subsections (a) and (b).
       ``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, for non-
     structural flood control projects, the phrase `construction 
     of the project or separable element' means the acquisition of 
     lands, easements and rights-of-way primarily to relocate 
     structures, or the performance of physical work under a 
     construction contract for other non-structural measures. For 
     environmental protection and restoration projects, it means 
     the acquisition of lands, easements and rights-of-way 
     primarily to facilitate the restoration of wetlands or 
     similar habitats, or the performance of physical work under a 
     construction contract to modify existing project facilities 
     or to construct new environmental protection and restoration 
     measures. For all other water resources projects, it means 
     the performance of physical work under a construction 
     contract. In no case shall the term ``physical work under a 
     construction contract'', as used in this subsection, include 
     activities related to project planning, engineering and 
     design, relocation, or the acquisition of lands, easements, 
     and rights-of-way.
       ``(f) Effective Date of Provisions.--Subsections (a)(2) and 
     (b)(2) shall become effective three years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.''

     SEC. 17. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Section 402 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 [100 Stat. 4133] is amended by--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1) by deleting ``Within 6 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the'' and 
     inserting ``The'';
       (2) by inserting ``that non-Federal interests shall adopt 
     and enforce'' after the word ``policies'' in the second 
     sentence in subsection (c)(1); and
       (3) by inserting at the end of subsection (c)(1) ``Such 
     guidelines shall also require non-Federal interests to take 
     measures to preserve the level of flood protection provided 
     by the project for which subsection (a) applies.''
       (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to any project or separable element thereof with 
     respect to which the Secretary and the non-Federal interest 
     have not entered into a project cooperation agreement on or 
     before the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 18. STUDY OF TRANSFER OF PROJECT LANDS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Study of Transfer.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     conduct a feasibility study in cooperation with the Secretary 
     of the Interior, the state of * * * and with the affected 
     Indian tribes, for the transfer to the Secretary of Interior 
     the land described in subsection (b) to be held in trust for 
     the benefit of the respective Indian tribes.
       ``(b) Lands To Be Studied.--The land authorized to be 
     studied for transfer is land that--
       (1) was acquired by the Secretary for the implementation of 
     the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program; and
       (2) is located within the external boundaries of the 
     reservations of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort 
     Berthold Reservation, N.D., the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of 
     North and South Dakota, the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the 
     Crow Creek Reservation, SD, the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South 
     Dakota, and the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
       ``(c) Definition.--For the purposes of this section the 
     term ``Indian tribe'' means any tribe, band, nation, or other 
     organized group or community of Indians, including any Alaska 
     Native village (as defined in, or established pursuant to, 
     the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C.A. 
     Sec. 1601 et seq.] which is recognized as eligible for the 
     special programs and services provided by the United States 
     to Indians because of their status as Indians.

     SEC. 19. PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS RESTORATION.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     participate in Critical Restoration Projects in the area of 
     the Puget Sound and its adjacent waters, including the 
     watersheds that drain directly into Puget Sound, Admiralty 
     Inlet, Hood Canal, Rosario Strait, and the eastern portion of 
     the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
       ``(b) Definition.--``Critical Restoration Projects'' are 
     those projects that will produce, consistent with existing 
     Federal programs, projects and activities, immediate and 
     substantial restoration, preservation and ecosystem 
     protection benefits.
       ``(c) Project Selection.--The Secretary, with the 
     concurrence of the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, 
     and in consultation with other appropriate Federal, Tribal, 
     State, and local agencies, may identify critical restoration 
     projects and may implement those projects after entering into 
     an agreement with an appropriate non-Federal interest in 
     accordance with the requirements of section 221 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and this 
     section.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of the Army to pay the 
     Federal share of the cost of carrying out projects under this 
     section $10,000,000.
       ``(e) Project Cost Limitation.--Not more than $2,500,000 in 
     Army Civil Works appropriations Federal funds may be 
     allocated to carrying out any one project under this section.
       ``(c) Cost Sharing.--
       ``(1) In general.--Prior to implementing any project under 
     this section, the Secretary shall enter into a binding 
     agreement with the non-Federal interest, which shall require 
     the non-Federal interest to: (a) pay 35 percent of the total 
     costs of the project; (b) acquire any lands, easements, 
     rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged material disposal 
     areas necessary for implementation of the project; (c) pay 
     100 percent of the operation, maintenance, repair, 
     replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with the 
     project; and (d) hold and save harmless the United States 
     free from claims or damages due to implementation of the 
     assistance project, except for the negligence of the 
     Government or its contractors.
       (2) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit 
     for the value of any lands, easements, rights-of-way, 
     relocations, and dredged material disposal areas provided for 
     implementation and completion of such assistance project. The 
     non-Federal interest may provide up to 50 percent of the non-
     Federal cost-sharing requirement through the provision of 
     services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind 
     services.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Gorton):
  S. 2438. A bill to provide for enhanced safety, public awareness, and 
environmental protection in pipeline transportation, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


     the king and tsiorvas pipeline safety improvement act of 2000

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the King and 
Tsiorvas Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000. This bill proposes to 
reauthorize the Pipeline Safety Act, which expires at the end of this 
fiscal year (FY), through fiscal year 2003. It is intended to 
strengthen and improve both federal and state pipeline safety efforts 
and heighten public awareness of pipeline safety. I am pleased to be 
joined in sponsoring this bill by Senator Murray and Senator Gorton.
  Many of these issues came to the forefront as a result of a tragic 
accident that occurred in Bellingham, Washington, last June 10, 1999. 
An underground hazardous liquid pipeline ruptured and 277,000 gallons 
of gasoline leaked into a creek. Two 10-year-old boys, Wade King and 
Stephen Tsiorvas, had been playing by the creek into which the gasoline 
flowed. The gasoline was accidently ignited and a massive fire ensued. 
Both boys died as a result of their injuries. Another young man, Liam 
Wood, was fishing at the creek the same day. He was overcome by the 
gasoline fumes, slipped into unconsciousness, and subsequently drowned.
  Mr. President, in addition to these needless deaths, the pipeline 
accident caused destructive fires and environmental damage for miles. 
Since the June accident, many concerned individuals have come forward 
and dedicated themselves to finding ways to improve and strengthen the 
Department of Transportation pipeline safety program. The Senators from 
Washington State have introduced one bill. Other pipeline safety 
measures have been introduced in the House. Yesterday, the 
Administration submitted its own pipeline safety reauthorization 
proposal. These bills contain many provisions I believe merit 
Congressional consideration and some of those provisions are included 
in the legislation I am introducing today.
  It is my intention, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation, to chair a full Committee hearing on 
Pipeline Safety in the near future. I hope to report a reauthorization 
measure to the full Senate before the Memorial Day Recess. In that 
effort, I will be seeking input from public safety advocates, the 
National Transportation Safety Board, the DOT-Inspector General, the 
Department of Transportation, industry and others interested in 
promoting pipeline safety.
  Mr. President, currently the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) within 
the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) oversees the 
transportation of about 65 percent of the petroleum and most of the 
natural gas transported in the United States. OPS regulates the day-to-
day safety of 2,000 gas pipeline operators with more than 1.9 million 
miles of pipeline, as well as more than 200 hazardous liquid operators 
and 165,000 miles of pipelines. Given the immense array of pipelines 
that traverse our nation, reauthorization of the pipeline safety 
program is, quite simply, critical to public safety.

[[Page S2758]]

  The safety record of pipeline transportation is generally quite good. 
However, accidents do occur and when they occur, they can be 
devastating, as was the case last June.
  Last month, the Senate Commerce Committee held a field hearing on 
this accident in Bellingham, Washington, and the Committee, as I 
mentioned, is committed to moving a reauthorization bill through the 
legislative process as soon as possible. We must act to help improve 
pipeline safety and prevent tragedies like that which occurred in 
Bellingham.
  The bill I am introducing includes a number of provisions intended to 
strengthen and improve pipeline safety. It also is designed to increase 
State oversight authority and facilitate greater public information 
sharing at the local community level.
  Two areas that warrant DOT's immediate attention, in my view, concern 
safety recommendations that have already been issued by the National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Inspector General (IG). The 
Department's responsiveness to NTSB pipeline safety recommendations for 
years has been poor at best. While current law requires the Secretary 
to respond to NTSB recommendations within 90 days from receipt, there 
are no similar requirements at RSPA. The problem is serious, Mr. 
President. I am aware of one case in particular where a NTSB 
recommendation sat at DOT's pipeline office for more than 900 days 
before even a letter so much as acknowledging receipt was sent. Such 
blatant disregard for the important work of the NTSB is intolerable. 
Therefore, this legislation statutorily requires RSPA and OPS to 
respond to each pipeline safety recommendation it receives from the 
NTSB and to provide a detailed report on what action it plans to 
initiate to adopt the recommendation.
  In addition, the bill would require the Department to implement the 
recommendations made last month by the IG to further improve pipeline 
safety. The DOT IG found several glaring safety gaps at OPS and it is 
incumbent upon us all to do all we can to insure that the Department 
affirmatively acts on these critical problems.
  The bill would also address the issue of training of pipeline 
operators. A number of safety interests, including the NTSB, have long 
emphasized the need to improve operator training. In recognition that a 
one-size-fits-all approach on this issue is not feasible due to the far 
different operating and maintenance requirements governing pipeline 
operations, this bill would require each operator to submit a training 
plan to the Secretary keyed to his or her particular operation. The 
Secretary would be expected to review the plans and work with operators 
to ensure a consistent safety level is maintained. The bill also 
directs the Secretary to issue regulations to ensure periodic 
inspections of pipelines and provides authority to the Secretary to 
shut down operations which are determined to pose an imminent hazard.
  Another critical component of this reauthorization bill focuses on 
increased public education efforts, enhanced emergency response 
preparedness, and community right to know. It also includes provisions 
to increase state oversight of pipeline safety concerns. While some may 
prefer to reduce the federal role over pipeline safety and 
substantially increase the authority of State regulation, I believe 
such an approach would be short-sighted. While the concept of 
preemption by states may seem an attractive solution for some pipeline 
safety concerns, it is not the best approach. After all, pipelines play 
a vital role in both interstate and international commerce. A mishmash 
of state laws regarding the construction, maintenance, training, and 
operation of pipelines would certainly hamper commerce and would likely 
not improve safety. In fact, accident records show that more than 70 
percent of pipeline transportation injuries and fatalities have 
occurred on intrastate lines, pipelines under the direct responsibility 
of the States.

  Recently, the U.S. Courts have upheld the need for consistent 
standards in interstate and international commerce. However, in the 
Courts ruling, they did not restrict the right of the states to take 
action altogether. In fact, states already have considerable power to 
regulate pipelines and promote safety through the Federal/State 
Partnership program. Additionally, the states ability to promulgate 
laws regarding ``one call'' can do more to prevent accidents than any 
other action. States already play an important role and my bill would 
build on that role and permit the states to join the Secretary in 
efforts to oversee interstate pipeline transportation and promote 
emergency preparedness and accident prevention.
  The bill also addresses the need to improve data collection and 
analysis. For more than 25 years, the NTSB has identified major 
deficiencies and recommended changes to RSPA's pipeline accident data 
collection process. This bill would ensure RSPA take the action 
necessary to address these identified problems and improve its data 
collection and use.
  In addition, the bill calls attention to the critical role of 
innovative technology in promoting safety. Specifically, the bill 
directs the Secretary to focus the department's research and 
development programs to address technology that can detect pipe 
material defects and alternative pipeline inspection and monitory 
technologies that cannot accommodate current technologies. Finally, the 
bill would increase funding to carry out pipeline safety and state 
grant programs through fiscal year 2003.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues attention to this important 
safety issue and look forward to bringing a reauthorization bill to the 
full Senate for consideration in the near future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 2439. A bill to authorize the appropriation of funds for the 
construction of the Southeastern Alaska Intertie system, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                  southeastern alaska intertie system

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill 
with my colleague, Senator Ted Stevens, to provide a tremendously 
important authorization for an electrical intertie for an isolated 
region of my State of Alaska. As many of my colleagues know, Alaska has 
many unique problems. We are over twice the size of Texas, with fewer 
miles of paved roads than the District of Columbia. Most of our 
communities are unconnected. The results of this are stark for those in 
unconnected communities, and have significant impacts on their lives. 
Energy costs and reliance upon fossil fuels for power generation are 
just some of these impacts.
  The vast majority of these towns and villages pay very high energy 
costs. In some instances, these costs exceed 38 cents per kilowatt 
hour. This makes the cost of living almost unbearable for many local 
residents. For example, the village of Kake, Alaska pays 38 cents per 
kilowatt hour and has 38 percent unemployment. Unlike in the rest of 
the country, when unemployment strikes a particular unconnected 
community in Alaska, the option to drive to employment in a neighboring 
community does not exist. One either stays in a devastated community or 
sells one's home in a market of sellers under duress. With electrical 
rates running three times and above those in most of the U.S., few will 
invest in these communities.
  Mr. President, I refer Members to the latest study of economic 
situation in Southeast Alaska. The report deals with the economic 
impact of declining timber harvests in Southeast Alaska. This is not 
intended to restart the debate over that issue. That is for another 
forum. However, what the report vividly describes is the drastic  
decline in the economy of this region. In the last decade, known by 
most of the country as the greatest boom in the century, Southeast 
Alaska has lost 2900 jobs and over $100 million in payroll. Many of 
these communities have suffered losses in population. For example, the 
Wrangell/Petersburg area has suffered a 13 percent loss in wage and 
salary income; my hometown of Ketchikan suffered a similar 12 percent 
loss. Personal income is down from 5 to 11 percent in the region 
generally. The problem for Southeast Alaska is that it has no viable 
option for a replacement industry.

  In other areas of the country, such as the Pacific Northwest, 
alternative employment such as high tech companies

[[Page S2759]]

in Oregon and Washington have replaced honorable livelihoods in 
resource-based industries. There has been no comparable replacement 
industry for Southeast Alaska. There are a number of reasons, but the 
biggest reason is lack of affordable power for most communities.
  Mr. President, in the Pacific Northwest, power costs are reasonable 
and the Bonneville Power Administration has an efficient and modern 
distribution system. In the lower 48 generally, every village and town 
is connected by power grid to the rest of the nation. That is not the 
case in Southeast Alaska. This lack of connection exacerbates the 
situation.
  However, what can be done is to interconnect the region. By doing 
this, the existing and potential clean energy sources can be maximized 
and the power can be managed between communities and other users. Right 
now, one hydroelectric facility, Lake Tyee has tremendous excess 
capacity to bring clean and cheaper energy to many villages. This has 
been proven in a study conducted by the Southeast Conference. The 
Southeast Conference is the group of Mayors representing communities 
throughout Southeast Alaska. This study, entitled the Southeast Alaska 
Electrical Intertie System Plan, outlines the regional grid which this 
bill authorizes.
  Mr. President, let me be clear, this is only an authorization. The 
bill provides no obligation to the Federal government to be involved in 
the construction of this intertie system whatsoever.
  The bill also does not authorize nor does it contemplate that the 
federal government will exercise any ownership or management 
responsibility over this system. In fact, the Southeast communities 
which have asked me to introduce this bill seek to manage this project 
themselves.
  It simply provides an authorization for the Congress to assist the 
communities in assemblying funding for the project. There is ample 
precedent for this. In fact, this very process was used successfully in 
Arizona and Utah with the Central Arizona and Central Utah projects. 
The era of the federal government constructing, owning and operating 
new power generation facilities has passed. However, the federal 
government can provide valuable assistance to a group of communities 
which seek to get their region back on the road to economic recovery. 
This is a good bill because it encourages local self reliance.
  Mr. President, an intertie can do so much to assist this region. 
Right now, we have a series of isolated communities which cannot even 
work with each other on power issues. Each must provide its own 
generation and transmission facilities. And almost all of these 
facilities use diesel oil-fired generation because that is the only 
type of self-contained transmission facility which these communities 
can afford. Instead with an intertie, these generators can be put in 
mothballs and used only for isolated emergency backup. The intertie 
will provide reliable and clean sources of energy for all these 
communities.
  I am informed by the communities that they intend to form a state 
chartered regional power authority to manage this Intertie. It will 
have no federal budgetary obligation. Additionally, the intertie will 
help the environment by shifting these small villages from their diesel 
generation and pointing them towards clean, renewable fuel sources. All 
of these facilities will be subject to all federal, state, and local 
laws including environmental laws. Just to make sure that this is 
clear, I have included a specific provision in the bill that reaffirms 
that this simple authorization will not affect, change, or alter any 
obligations under federal laws such as the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA). All of the facilities will be subject to normal 
permitting.
  There will undoubtedly be environmental studies required for the 
different components. For example, part of phase 1 of the Intertie 
includes the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee project which will connect my hometown 
of Ketchikan to its neighbors to the north, Wrangell and Petersburg. 
The permits for this project are already in place and were issued by 
the Forest Service as a result of a laborious 2 year NEPA study. The 
Forest Service issued a full Environmental Impact Statement which 
resulted in a favorable record of decision. No corners were cut and the 
project was approved by the Forest Service and permits issued. This 
bill will have no effect on that process. Any other phases will have to 
undergo close scrutiny, although I am convinced that connecting 
communities together using renewable hydropower will be much better 
environmentally than continued reliance on transporting, storing and 
burning high-priced diesel.
  Mr. President, Alaska was not even a state when the major 
transmission systems were built in this country in the 1930's, 1940's 
and 1950's. Until World War II compelled the heroic construction of the 
Alcan Highway. Alaska was not even connected by road to the rest of the 
country. Alaska was never even considered as a candidate for the 
construction of a transmission system. Alaska's economic development is 
in its infancy even today. A project like the Southeast Regional 
Intertie is necessary to give that region of Alaska the opportunity to 
recover from the economic disaster outlined in the McDowell report. It 
is my intention to have this bill considered by my committee soon and I 
hope to report it favorably to the Senate floor in the near future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Gorton, Mr. 
        Inouye, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Bryan):
  S. 2440. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to improve 
airport security; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                airport security improvement act of 2000

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Aviation 
Security Improvement Act of 2000. I would like to recognize the efforts 
of Commerce Committee Chairman McCain and Aviation Subcommittee 
Chairman Gorton who have agreed to cosponsor this legislation. I am 
also joined by Senators Inouye, Rockefeller, and Bryan in this effort 
to improve the security of the flying public.
  Approximately 500 million passengers will pass through U.S. airports 
this year. Protecting their safety in an incredible challenge to the 
men and women of the aviation industry. The Federal Government, through 
the Federal Aviation Administration and Industry together, must do 
everything within our power to protect the public from the menace of 
terrorism and other security threats.
  In 1996, soon after the tragedy of TWA flight 800, I proposed new 
requirements to improve security at the nation's airports. Congress 
adopted these requirements as part of the Federal Aviation 
Reauthorization Act of 1996. This legislation tried to improve the 
hiring process and enhance the professionalism of airport security 
screeners. The act also directed the FAA to upgrade security technology 
with regard to baggage screening and explosive detection.
  In my view, the FAA has been slow to implement these vital security 
improvements. The FAA does not plan to finalize the regulation to 
improve training requirements for screeners and certification for 
screening companies until May 2001. Five years is too long to wait. 
Technology upgrades have also been slow in coming, even though the 
upgraded technology is readily available. The traveling public should 
not have to wait yet another year before these improvements are 
implemented.
  The FAA must modernize its procedure for background checks of 
prospective security-related employees. An FAA background check 
currently takes 90 days. That is too long. Under current procedures, 
the FAA is required to perform these checks only when an applicant has 
a gap in employment history of 12 months or longer, or if preliminary 
investigation reveals discrepancies in an applicant's resume. But 43% 
of violent felons serve an average of only seven months. This gap 
should be closed.
  My legislation, the Airport Security Improvement Act, would direct 
FAA to require criminal background checks for all applicants for 
positions with security responsibilities, including security screeners. 
The bill will also require that these checks be performed 
expeditiously.
  My legislation also directs FAA to improve training requirements for 
security screeners by September 30 of

[[Page S2760]]

this year. FAA should require a minimum of 40 hours of classroom 
instruction and 40 hours of practical on-the-job training before an 
individual is deemed qualified to provide security screening services. 
This standard would be a substantial increase over the 8 hours of 
classroom training currently required for most screening positions in 
the U.S. The 40 hour requirement is the prevailing standard in most of 
the industrialized world.
  Finally, my bill would require FAA to work with air carriers and 
airport operators to strengthen procedures to eliminate unauthorized 
access to aircraft. Employees who fail to follow access procedures 
should be suspended or terminated. I understand that FAA is currently 
working on improving access standards. I hope this bill will encourage 
them to do so in a timely fashion.
  We are privileged to have with us today a distinguished panel of 
witnesses who are well-versed in the area of airport security. I want 
to welcome them to the hearing and I am looking forward to their 
testimony.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of Senator 
Hutchison's bill to improve aviation security. Our colleague from Texas 
brings unique expertise to this issue as a former member of the 
National Transportation Safety Board. I want to thank her for her 
diligence in this area over the past several years as a member of the 
Commerce Committee Aviation Subcommittee.
  Among other things, the Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000 
would make pre-employment criminal background checks mandatory for all 
baggage screeners at airports, not just those who have significant gaps 
in their employment histories. It would require screeners to undergo 
extensive training requirements, since U.S. training standards fall far 
short of European standards. The legislation would also seek tighter 
enforcement against unauthorized access to airport secure areas.
  I cannot overemphasize the importance of adequate training and 
competency checks for the folks who check airline baggage for weapons 
and bombs. The turnover rate among this workforce is as high as 400 
percent at one of the busiest airports in the country! The work is 
hard, and the pay is low. Obviously, this legislation does not 
establish minimum pay for security screeners. By asking their employers 
to invest more substantially in training, however, we hope that they 
will also work to ensure a more stable and competent workforce.
  Several aviation security experts appeared before the Aviation 
Subcommittee at a hearing last week. They raised additional areas of 
concern that I expect to address as this bill proceeds through the 
legislative process. For instance, government and industry officials 
alike agree that the list of ``disqualifying'' crimes that are 
uncovered in background checks needs to be expanded. Most of us find it 
surprising that an individual convicted of assault with a deadly 
weapon, burglary, larceny, or possession of drugs would not be 
disqualified from employment as an airport baggage screener.
  Fortunately, this bill is not drafted in response to loss of life 
resulting from a terrorist incident. Even so, it is clear that even our 
most elementary security safeguards may be inadequate, as evidenced by 
the loaded gun that a passenger recently discovered in an airplane 
lavatory during flight.
  I look forward to working with Senator Hutchison, as well as experts 
in both government and industry circles, to make sure that any 
legislative proposal targets resources in the most effective manner. By 
and large, security at U.S. airports is good, and airport and airline 
efforts clearly have a deterrent effect. What is also clear, however, 
is that we cannot relax our efforts as airline travel grows, and 
weapons technologies become more sophisticated.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 2441. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
establish a program for fisheries habitat protection, restoration, and 
enhancement, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.


                          fishable waters act

 Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Fishable Waters Act with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln. 
This is consensus legislation from a uniquely diverse spectrum of 
interests to establish a comprehensive, voluntary, incentive-based, 
locally-led program to improve and restore our fisheries.
  Put simply, this legislation enables local stakeholders to get 
together to design water quality projects in their own areas that will 
be eligible for some $350 million federal assistance to implement for 
the benefit of our fisheries and water quality. It does not change any 
existing provisions, regulatory or otherwise, of the Clean Water Act.
  The Fishable Waters Act compliments existing clean water programs 
that are designed to encourage, rather than coerce the participation of 
landowners. This legislation will work because it will empower people 
at the local level who have a stake in its success and who will have 
hands-on involvement in its implementation.
  It is supported by members of the Fishable Waters Coalition which 
includes the American Sportfishing Association, Trout Unlimited, the 
Izaak Walton League of America, the National Corn Growers Association, 
the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the Bass Anglers Sportsman 
Society, the American Fisheries Society, the International Association 
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the Pacific Rivers Council. These 
groups have labored quietly but with great determination for several 
years to produce this consensus proposal to build on the success of the 
Clean Water Act.
  As my colleagues understand, it is at great peril that anyone in this 
town undertakes to address clean water-related issues but the need is 
too great and this approach too practical to not embrace it, introduce 
it, and work to achieve the wide-spread support it merits.
  A companion bill is being introduced by Congressman John Tanner in 
the House. That measure is being cosponsored by Representatives Roy 
Blunt, John Dingell, Nancy Johnson, Charles Stenholm, Sherwood 
Boehlert, Wayne Gilchrest, Pat Danner, Phil English, Christopher John 
and Jim Saxton.
  Joining us yesterday for the kickoff were representatives of the 
Fisable Waters Coalition and a special guest, a fishing enthusiast who 
some may know otherwise as a top-ranked U.S. golfer, David Duval. ``Why 
am I here? I like to fish. I've done it as long as I can remember,'' 
Duval said. ``I want my kids to be able to have healthy habitats for 
fish. I want my grandkids and my great-grandkids to be able to do what 
I enjoy so much, and I think this could make a big difference.''
  This bipartisan and consensus legislation is intended to capture 
opportunities to build on the success of the Clean Water Act. It 
enables local stakeholders to get together with farmers who own 70 
percent of our nation's land to design local water quality projects 
that will be eligible for some $350 million in federal assistance for 
the benefit of our fisheries and water quality.
  Instead of Washington saying, ``you do this and you pay for it'' and 
instead of Washington saying, ``you do this but we'll help you pay for 
it'', this legislation lets local citizens design projects that can be 
eligible for federal assistance. For farmers, the idea of protecting 
land for future generations is not an abstract notion because the 
farmers in my State know that good stewardship is good for them and 
their families. Their challenge is that while they feed this nation and 
provide some $50 billion in exports, they do not have the ability to 
pass additional costs onto consumers like corporations do. For the 2 
million people who farm to provide environmental benefits for 
themselves and the rest of the nation's 270 million people, they need 
partners because they cannot afford to do it by themselves. This 
legislation recognizes that reality.
  While one can expect a great deal of controversy surrounding any 
comprehensive Clean Water effort, the consensus that has built around 
this approach is cause for great optimism that this legislation will be 
the vehicle to make significant additional progress in improving water 
quality.
  I congratulate members of the Coalition for producing and supporting 
this consensus legislation and I look forward to working with Senator 
Lincoln

[[Page S2761]]

and my other Senate colleagues to move this legislation forward.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a one-page 
summary of the bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

               Fishable Waters Act Bill Summary in Brief


                                purpose

       This legislation begins with the premise that while great 
     progress has been made in improving water quality under the 
     Clean Water Act, more opportunities remain. The particular 
     emphasis on this legislation is on opportunities to address 
     fisheries habitat and water quality needs.
       The findings include that it shall be the policy of the 
     United States to protect, restore, and enhance fisheries 
     habitat and related uses through voluntary watershed planning 
     at the state and local level that leads to sound fisheries 
     conservation on an overall watershed basis.
       To carry out this objective, a new section is added to the 
     Clean Water Act.


                                program

       The legislation authorizes the establishment of voluntary 
     and local Watershed Councils to consider the best available 
     science to plan and implement a program to protect and 
     restore fisheries habitat with the consent of affected 
     landowners.
       Each comprehensive plan must consider the following 
     elements: characterization of the watershed in terms of 
     fisheries habitat; objectives both near- and long-term; 
     ongoing factors affecting habitat and access; specific 
     projects that need to be undertaken to improve fisheries 
     habitat; and any necessary incentives, financial or 
     otherwise, to facilitate implementation of best management 
     practices to better deal with non-point source pollution 
     including sediments impairing waterways.
       Projects and measures that can be implemented or 
     strengthened with the consent of affected landowners to 
     improve fisheries habitat including stream side vegetation, 
     instream modifications and structures, modifications to flood 
     control measures and structures that would improve the 
     connection of rivers to low-lying backwaters, oxbows, and 
     tributary mouths.
       With the consent of affected landowners, those projects, 
     initiatives, and restoration measures identified in the 
     approved plan become eligible for funding through a Fisheries 
     Habitat Account.
       Funds from the Fisheries Habitat Account may be used to 
     provide up to 15 percent for the non-federal matching 
     requirement under including the following conservation 
     programs: The Wetlands Reserve Program; The Environmental 
     Quality Incentives Program; The National Estuary Program; The 
     Emergency Conservation Program; The Farmland Protection 
     Program; The Conservation Reserve Program; The Wildlife 
     Habitat Incentives Program; The North American Wetlands 
     Conservation Program; The Federal Aid in Sportfish 
     Restoration Program; The Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine 
     Ecosystem Restoration Program; The Environmental Management 
     Program; and The Missouri and Middle Mississippi Enhancement 
     Project.
       The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to develop an 
     urban waters revitalization program ($25m/yr) to improve 
     fisheries and related recreational activities in urban waters 
     with priority given to funding projects located in and 
     benefitting low-income or economically depressed areas.
       $250 million is authorized annually through Agriculture for 
     the planning and implementation of projects contained in 
     approved plans.
       States with approved programs may, if they choose, transfer 
     up to 20 percent of the funds provided to each state through 
     the Clean Water Act's $200 million Section 319 non-point 
     source program to implement planned projects.
       Up to $25 million is authorized annually through Interior 
     for measures to restrict livestock assess to streams and 
     provide alternative watering opportunities and $50 million is 
     authorized annually to provide, with the cooperation of 
     landowners, minimum instream flows and water 
     quantities.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from 
Missouri, Kit Bond, in introducing the Fishable Waters Act. This bill 
is aimed at restoring and maintaining clean water in our Nation's 
rivers, lakes, and streams. This bill will provide funding for programs 
with a proven track record of conserving land, cleaning up the 
environment, and promoting clean and fishable waters. This legislation 
takes the right approach to reducing non-point source pollution. It's 
voluntary. It's incentive-based. And if encourages public-private 
partnerships.
  Our State Motto, ``The Natural State,'' reflects our dedication to 
preserving the unique natural landscape that is Arkansas. We have 
towering mountains, rolling foothills, an expansive Delta, countless 
pristine rivers and lakes, and a multitude of timber varieties across 
our state. From expansive evergreen forests in the South, to the 
nation's largest bottomland hardwood forest in the East, as well as one 
of this nation's largest remaining hardwood forests across the Northern 
one-half of the state, Arkansas has one of the most diverse ecosystems 
in the United States. Most streams and rivers in Arkansas originate or 
run through our timberlands and are sources for water supplies, prime 
recreation, and countless other uses. We also have numerous outdoor 
recreational opportunities and it is vital that we take steps to 
protect the environment.
  This bill utilizes current programs within the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture that have a proven track record of reducing non-point 
sources of pollution and promoting clean and fishable water through 
voluntary conservation measures. Existing USDA programs like the 
Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 
Conservation Reserve Program, and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, 
assist farmers in taking steps towards preserving a quality 
environment.
  CRP and WRP are so popular with farmers, that they will likely reach 
their authorized enrollment cap by the end of 2001. Mr. President, 
farmers wouldn't flock to these programs unless there was an inherent 
desire to ensure that they conserved and preserved our Nation's water 
resources.
  Arkansas ranks third in the number of enrolled acres in USDA's 
Wetlands Reserve Program because our farmers have recognized the vital 
role that wetlands play in preserving a sound ecology.
  WRP is so popular in AR that we have over 200 currently pending 
applications that we cannot fill because of lack of funding. That's 
over 200 farmers that want to voluntarily conserve wetland areas around 
rivers, lakes, and streams. We need to fill that void in funding for 
these beneficial programs. This bill will help farmers in Arkansas and 
across the nation to voluntarily conserve sensitive land areas and 
provide buffer strips for runoff areas.
  Farmers make their living from the soil and water. They have a vested 
interest in ensuring that these resources are protected. I don't 
believe that our nation's farmers have been given enough credit for 
their efforts to preserve a sound environment.
  As many of you know, farming has a special place in my heart because 
I was raised in a seventh generation farm family. I know first hand 
that farmers want to protect the viability of their land so they can 
pass it on to the next generation. This bill is about more than 
agriculture though. It strikes the right balance between our 
agricultural industry and another pastime that I feel very strongly 
about, hunting and fishing.
  Over the years many people have been surprised when they learn that I 
am an avid outdoorsman. I grew up in the South where hunting and 
fishing are not just hobbies, they're a way of life. My father never 
differentiated between taking his son or daughters hunting or fishing, 
it was just assumed that we would all take part. For this, I will be 
forever grateful because I truly enjoy the outdoors, and the time I 
spent hunting and fishing is a big part of who I am today.
  We are blessed in Arkansas to have such bountiful outdoor 
opportunities. For these opportunities to continue to exist we must 
take steps to ensure that our nation's waters are protected. Trout in 
Arkansas' Little Red River and mallards in the riverbottoms of the 
Mississippi Delta both share a common need of clean water. And that is 
what we are ultimately striving for with this legislation: an 
effective, voluntary, incentive based plan to provide funding for 
programs that promote clean water.
  Mr. President, I want to again stress the importance of voluntary 
programs.
  We cannot expect to have success by using a heavy-handed approach to 
regulate our farmers, ranchers, and foresters into environmental 
compliance. Trying to force people into a permitting program to reduce 
the potential for non-profit runoff may actually discourage responsible 
environmental practices.
  I agree with the EPA's objective of cleaning up our nation's impaired 
rivers, lakes, and streams, but firmly believe that a permitting 
program is not the best solution to the problem of maintaining clean 
water. Placing another unnecessary layer of regulation

[[Page S2762]]

upon our nation's local foresters will only slow down the process of 
responsible farming and forestry and the implementation of voluntary 
Best Management Practices.
  Mr. President, this legislation takes the right approach to clean and 
fishable waters. It's voluntary. It's incentive-based. And it 
encourages public-private partnerships to clean up our Nation's rivers, 
lakes, and streams.
  I encourage my colleagues to join us in the fight for clean and 
fishable waters.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY:
  S. 2442. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide long-term, 
low-interest loans to apple growers; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


                   apple orchard diversification act

 Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Apple Orchard Diversification Act of 2000.
  Mr. President, I am proud that Washington state produces more apples 
than any other state in the nation. The apple industry is an 
independent group. It has made Washington state and U.S. apples and 
apple products popular in many corners of the world. In the mid-1990s, 
growers were doing well, markets were opening and expanding, and the 
future looked bright.
  But in 1998 and 1999, the bottom fell out from under them. Low prices 
and weather-related disasters devastated apple producers, and growers 
of hundreds of other commodities nationwide. In northeastern and mid-
Atlantic states, fruit and vegetable growers were hit hard by freezing 
temperatures and drought. In the Pacific Northwest, some growers were 
hurt by bad weather.
  But the biggest problem is low prices. These low prices are caused by 
the Asian financial crisis; by market access problems; by below-cost 
apple juice concentrate dumping by China; by record world-wide 
production and oversupply; and other factors.
  The results are devastating, especially in my home state of 
Washington. Nationwide, the industry lost an estimated $300 million on 
the 1998 crop. In Okanogan County in Washington state, some 
organizations have estimated that 90 percent of apple growers will not 
recover their 1999 expenses. Okanogan County already experiences high 
unemployment. It cannot afford a long-term, depressed farm economy. The 
county declared an economic disaster and urged the state to do the 
same. Meanwhile, other counties, especially in north central 
Washington, are trying to respond to this disaster. Many growers will 
go out of business. Others will not be able to get commercial lending 
this year.
  The Administration and members of this Congress are working to 
resolve some of the issues facing the industry and rural communities.
  Last year, Congress passed a large disaster relief package for 
agriculture. I supported this package because it kept many producers 
above water for another year. However, like many of my colleagues, I 
was frustrated this package did not do more for specialty crop 
producers. Congress provided $1.2 billion in crop loss assistance. 
Specialty crop producers, including apple growers, were eligible to 
receive assistance to address weather-related disasters, and some 
growers did. But, in states like Washington, the aid package did too 
little.
  Fortunately, action is occurring on the most important issue facing 
the apple industry. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Commerce 
levied anti-dumping duties of 51.74 percent on the majority of imports 
of below-cost apple juice concentrate from China. The Administration's 
preliminary anti-dumping duty ruling in November 1999 helped our 
producers by raising the price of both juice apples and concentrate. By 
May 22, the U.S. International Trade Commission will make its final 
injury ruling. If an injury determination is made, the Administration 
will implement anti-dumping duties at the levels prescribed by the 
Commerce Department.

  Our second victory was to address pest control in abandoned orchards. 
During my trip to central Washington last August, I heard from 
community leaders that this was a real problem.
  Low prices have caused many producers to abandon their orchards, and 
some of these orchards became infested. Infested orchards impact the 
operations of other producers and create potential trade problems. In 
response, counties tore out trees and sprayed orchards. But last year, 
funds in many counties were running low.
  USDA holds defaulted loans on some of these abandoned orchards. Last 
year, I urged the agency to take responsibility for pest control on 
those properties. The Farm Service Agency in Washington state created a 
strategy for reimbursing counties for pest control In October 1999, I 
wrote to Secretary Glickman to urge him to approve FSA's reimbursement 
strategy. Shortly thereafter, USDA implemented this initiative so 
counties could continue to control pests.
  The third victory for apple and specialty crop producers may come 
soon, when President Clinton signs risk management reform legislation 
into law. The bill passed by the Senate would make major changes to 
federal crop insurance policy to ensure that all producers, including 
specialty crop growers, will have access to more viable risk management 
products.
  But more needs to be done. My highest priorities for agriculture 
remain investing in research, expanding trade, and providing a safety 
net when economic and natural disasters strike.
  Last November, I introduced S. 1983, the Agricultural Market Access 
and Development Act. My bill would authorize the Secretary of 
Agriculture to spend up to $200 million--but not less than the current 
$90 million--for the Market Access Program. And it would set a floor of 
$35 million for spending on the Foreign Market Development 
``Cooperator'' Program. Senators Craig, Boxer, Feinstein, Gordon Smith, 
Gorton, Wyden, Cleland, and Coverdell have all cosponsored this 
legislation, and I appreciate their support.
  The USDA Foreign Agricultural Service has reported that in 1999 we 
experienced our first agricultural trade deficit with the European 
Union. We imported $7.7 billion of EU agricultural products and 
exported $6.8 billion. Our competitors have increased market promotion 
spending by 35 percent, or $1 billion, over the past three years. Our 
spending, however, has decreased one percent.
  Agricultural exports are key to maintaining a reasonable trade 
balance. Other nations have invested in market development, and it's 
worked. We need to enhance our trade programs to give our producers a 
more level playing field and a fighting chance.
  Besides expanding trade, we must strengthen the safety net for 
producers. We should not go back to our old Federal farm policies. Our 
program commodity growers do not want that, and our specialty crop 
producers do not want a new, permanent relationship with the federal 
government.
  But I believe this farm crisis has taught us that we need flexible 
tools available for all producers when economic or natural disasters 
strike. For some commodities this may mean counter-cyclical payments. 
Or it may mean a variety of flexible loans that meet the needs of all 
producers or specific commodities. As we debate the next farm bill, we 
should give USDA flexibility, within fiscally-responsible guidelines, 
to respond to crises in agriculture.
  Today, I am introducing legislation to create a one-time Apple 
Orchard Diversification Program. I have heard from growers that they 
could very much use a loan program to diversify their orchards into 
more commercially-viable varieties. Many of our producers invested 
heavily in Red and Golden Delicious apples, which are the varieties 
hardest hit by the economic crisis. We need a mechanism to allow these 
growers to diversify their orchards.
  My bill would do just that. It would authorize USDA to provide up to 
$75 million in long-term, low-interest loans to apple producers. The 
loans could be used by producers to purchase trees for converting 
existing apply orchards into more profitable apple varieties.
  My bill waives much of the regulatory process. USDA has been 
overwhelmed with managing disaster programs, and that has delayed 
relief. Instead, my bill bill requires USDA to conduct a stakeholder 
process, which

[[Page S2763]]

would include three hearings around the country. The industry would 
help develop the program, and address issues such as income and acreage 
qualifications for growers who receive loans, and parameters on 
payments, acreage and varietal stock quality.
  The concept of orchard diversification was born when Under Secretary 
Gus Schumacher visited Quincy, Washington, in July 1999. The Under 
Secretary has spent a great deal of time in apply producing regions 
around the country. Mr. Schumacher has been criticized by some elected 
officials and individuals for holding the listening session in 
Washington state. But I appreciate, and I know many of our family 
farmers appreciate, his interest in these issues.
  In conclusion, my grandfather moved to the Tri-Cities in the early 
1990s to work for Welch's. As a young child, I remember many trips to 
central Washington at harvest time to visit my grandmother, who 
remained in the area after my grandfather's death. To this day, the 
smell of fresh picked peaches and apples remind me of my childhood. To 
my Dad, it meant much more; it meant how his family put food on the 
table and paid the mortgage. We grew up understanding how important 
family-run orchards were to our state's economy.
  As I raised my own family, I always made sure we had a fruit tree in 
our yard. I wanted to remind myself of my years growing up and also to 
show my kids what a resource we have in our state. I could not imagine 
discussing Washington's economy without a box of apples being part of 
the picture. I want to make sure it stays that way for many generations 
to come.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and help pass this 
important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Reed, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 2443. A bill to increase immunization funding and provide for 
immunization infrastructure and delivery activities; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Reed):
  S. 2444. A bill to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act of 1974, the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to require comprehensive health insurance coverage 
for childhood immunization; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.


   the state immunization funding and infrastructure act of 2000 and 
 comprehensive insurance coverage of childhood immunization act of 2000

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as National Immunization Week approaches, 
I rise today to introduce legislation addressing childhood 
immunizations. National Immunization Week (April 17-21) recognizes one 
of the most powerful health care and public health achievements in this 
century. Remarkable advances in the science of vaccine development and 
widespread immunization efforts have led to a substantial reduction in 
the incidence of infectious disease. Today, vaccination coverage is at 
record high levels. Smallpox has been eradicated; polio has been 
eliminated from the Western Hemisphere; and measles and Hib invasive 
disease, the leading cause of childhood meningitis and postnatal 
retardation, have been reduced to record lows.
  The two bills I introduce today build on these successes. One 
proposal, ``The State Immunization Funding and Infrastructure Act of 
2000,'' ensures that state and local health departments are adequately 
funded to continue successful efforts to immunize children and improve 
their ability to reach pockets of underimmunized populations. The 
other, ``The Comprehensive Insurance Coverage of Childhood Immunization 
Act of 2000,'' requires all health plans to cover recommended childhood 
and adolescent immunizations.
  In spite of our successes, we must remain vigilant. Every day, nearly 
11,000 infants are born and each baby will need up to 19 doses of 
vaccine by age two. New vaccines continue to enter the market. Although 
a significant proportion of the general population may be fully 
immunized at a given time, coverage rates in the United States are 
uneven and life-threatening disease outbreaks do occur. In fact, in 
many of the Nation's urban and rural areas, rates are unacceptably low 
and are actually declining.
  Unfortunately, one of the areas most in need of attention is in my 
own home State of Illinois. Childhood immunization coverage rates in 
Chicago have dropped each year since 1996 when they peaked at 76 
percent. The most recent National Immunization Survey indicates that 
Chicago's coverage rate is now 66.7 percent--one of the lowest rates in 
the United States. Coverage rates for African American children in 
Chicago are the worst in the Nation.
  It is notable, however, that during this same period when Chicago has 
struggled to improve vaccination rates, Federal financial assistance to 
state and local health departments for immunization outreach activities 
has been significantly reduced. In 1999, Chicago received a 38 percent 
reduction in Federal funds for the operation of their immunization 
program. In 2000, Chicago suffered another 37.5 percent reduction. The 
State of Illinois suffered a 58 percent reduction in 1999 and a further 
16 percent reduction in the year 2000. And the story in my State is not 
that different from other areas of the country. Federal support for 
vaccine delivery activities has declined by more than 30 percent since 
1995.
  Purchasing vaccines is not enough. The Section 317 immunization 
program administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
provides grants to state and local public health departments for 
``operations and infrastructure'' activities. These grants are a 
critical source of support, indeed the sole source of Federal support, 
for essential efforts to get children immunized. They fund immunization 
registries, provider education programs, outreach initiatives to 
parents, outbreak control, and linkages with other public health and 
welfare services. These grants get the vaccine from the warehouse to 
our children.
  The State Immunization Funding And Infrastructure Act of 2000 
authorizes an increase in Federal support for Section 317 grants to 
states by $75 million for a total of $214 in FY2001. This restores 
funding to the levels States and localities received in the mid-1990's 
and will help to stabilize many of the key functions that have been cut 
back in the face of steep funding reductions. In the past few years, 
many states have already had to reduce clinic hours, cancel contracts 
with providers, suspend registry development and implementation, limit 
outreach efforts and discontinue performance monitoring. The bill also 
provides a $20 million increase over last year's funding level ($10 
million over the President's budget) for vaccine purchase. This will 
ensure that States are able to purchase adequate amounts of all 
currently licensed and recommended vaccines.
  The other proposal I am introducing today, The Comprehensive 
Insurance Coverage of Childhood Immunization Act of 2000, will require 
that all health plans cover all immunizations in accordance with the 
most recent version of the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule 
issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These 
vaccinations must be provided without deductibles, coinsurance or other 
cost-sharing for all children and adolescents under the age of 19.
  I was shocked to learn that, according to a recent survey of 
employer-sponsored health plans conducted by William M. Mercer, Inc. 
and Partnership for Prevention, one out of five employer-sponsored 
plans do not cover childhood immunizations and one out of four fail to 
cover adolescent immunizations. Not only is this a significant gap in 
our health system, but it is simply financially illogical. Childhood 
and adolescent immunizations have been proven to save money. They 
decrease the direct medical costs due to vaccine-preventable illnesses 
and reduce the time parents spend off the job, tending sick children.
  I invite my colleagues to join me in these efforts to maintain and 
improve our nation's national immunization record and to ensure that 
all areas of the country and all populations benefit from the advances 
we have made over the last century. Despite remarkable progress, many 
challenges still face the U.S. vaccine delivery system. Approximately 
one million children are still not adequately immunized. Our 
infrastructure must be capable of successfully implementing an 
increasingly complex vaccination schedule. Pockets

[[Page S2764]]

of underserved children still leave us vulnerable to deadly disease 
outbreaks.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mr. Edwards, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 2445. A bill to provide community-based economic development 
assistance for trade-affected communities; to the Committee on Finance.


               assistance development for communities act

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm pleased to introduce the Assistance in 
Development to Communities Act. This bill addressed the importance--and 
need--for community-based, economic development to assist areas in 
trade-related, economic transitions.
  Despite the increased globalization of our economy, many communities 
nationwide are still one-company or one-industry towns. If that company 
or industry is adversely affected by trade, the entire community faces 
economic strain. When these communities lose a major employer or 
industry, they sadly also lose something far more valuable--they lose 
their way of life, and too often their strong sense of community.
  Currently, when an individual loses a job because of the effects of 
trade, the federal government provides Trade Adjustment Assistance or 
NAFTA-Trade Adjustment Assistance to help with income support and 
worker retraining. But what good is that training without jobs?
  While we continue to open new avenues of free trade, the federal 
government has an obligation to help trade affected communities attract 
good jobs. Unfortunately, prospective employers don't automatically 
appear on the community's doorstep. Workers have mortgages, car 
payments, health concerns, family obligations and ties to the 
community, so relocation isn't always feasible. Local officials must 
find a way to lure industries to the area. Yet, they are caught in 
vicious cycle--employers are reluctant to move to economically 
depressed areas, but without jobs, communities will never recover.
  This is an on-going reality in the Martinsville/Henry County region 
of Virginia. In January, I spoke with local officials about the steady 
stream of job losses they've endured, including the loss of the number 
two employer in Martinsville. They've faced double-digit unemployment--
something that's virtually unheard of in this strong economy. They told 
me they need help.
  This legislation is borne from their ideas. The AID to Communities 
bill give local communities the resources they need to implement their 
own ideas for attracting new employers--quickly and easily. It does 
this by providing an automatic, one-time grant to help affected 
communities formulate an economic development plan. This grant, up to 
$100,000, gives communities the resources they need to develop a long-
term plan to readjust their economic base. Once that plan has been 
developed, the AID to Communities bill establishes a second, 
competitive grant program to help affected areas implement their plans. 
These grants can be used in a variety of ways, from expanding 
commercial infrastructure to establishing small business incubators.
  My bill also offers two incentives to attract prospective employers. 
The first incentive would expand the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) 
to provide employers with a tax credit if they hire someone who lives 
in an affected community and has lost a job due to trade. My bill would 
also make explicit that the New Markets Tax Credit, which provides 
incentives for private sector investment and capital access in certain 
areas, is available for trade-affected communities.
  Finally, the bill makes the federal government a better partner be 
creating a one-stop, easily accessible clearinghouse of economic 
development information. This clearinghouse would provide access to 
cross-agency economic development tools, such as grants or low-interest 
loans, for affected communities so local officials don't have to hunt 
through each federal agency for the information they need.
  Our neighbors in places like Martinsville/Henry County, Virginia are 
eager to enjoy the economic prosperity that the rest of the country 
enjoys, yet has so far eluded them. The AID to Communities bill is one 
way to help. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure 
that this bill becomes law and that the people of Martinsville/Henry 
County, and in so many other small towns across America, get the help 
we owe them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 2446. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
assistance to homeowners and small businesses to repair Formosan 
termite damage; to the Committee on Finance.


                      Formosan Termite Tax Credit

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention 
of the Senate a plague that has been afflicted upon our country--
formosan termites. Clearly, any termite is bad news for home and 
building owners, but the formosan termite is especially a problem. This 
aggressive termite species is becoming even more prevalent than native 
termite species in some areas. While native species generally feed on 
dead trees and processed wood, formosan termites have an unbelievably 
horrific appetite with a diet that consists of anything that contains 
wood fiber including homes, buildings and live trees as well as crops 
and plants. Believe it or not, formosan termites can even penetrate 
plaster, plastic and asphalt to get to a new food source.
  Coptotermes formosanus (otherwise known as the formosan termite), 
have invaded port cities in the United States and are spreading rapidly 
across the rest of the country. Right now this exotic species is 
wrecking their special brand of havoc in 14 states including 
California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, 
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, 
Virginia, and Hawaii with their map of destruction growing wider daily. 
Experts have estimated that it costs Americans an astonishing $1 
billion each year to repair the harm, with each new case costing 
homeowners an average of $20,000.
  Since the formosan termites was first brought to the United States it 
has spread like a plague through the Southeast. The infestation is most 
severe in New Orleans, where these pests have caused more damage than, 
``tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods combined'' and the total annual 
cost of termite damage and treatment is estimated at $217,000,000. In 
areas like the famed historic French Quarter, where close-packed houses 
share common walls, entire city blocks must be treated--a procedure 
that is costly and complicated. Outside the Quarter, officials fear 
that infestation may have hit as many as one-third of the beloved live 
oaks that shade historic thoroughfares such as St. Charles Avenue. A 
voracious blind creature that eats history--it sounds like something 
from a science-fiction nightmare, but it's real.
  Unfortunately, the only explanation for how this pest came to exist 
in the United States is that it was introduced from east Asia in the 
1940s through the mishandling of U.S. military cargo and troops 
returning home from World War II--I believe that since the government 
caused the damage, the government should do something to relieve the 
burden.
  The bill I am introducing today seeks to provide the victims of 
Formosan Termites with some much needed relief. Under current law, 
small business owners are allowed to deduct the cost to repair Formosan 
Termite damage as a capital loss under IRS code Section 165. For some 
reason, individual homeowners have been denied this same right, 
although they can deduct the cost to repair damages caused by disasters 
which are defined as casualty losses, such as flood and fire. My bill 
simply changes the definition of casualty loss to include Formosan 
Termites so that homeowners are allowed the same deduction that 
business owners are already getting.
  This measure also seeks to make low interest loans financed by the 
issuance of ``qualified'' private activity tax exempt bonds more 
accessible for homeowners and small businesses seeking to repair the 
expensive damage which was inflicted upon their homes by formosan 
termite damage. It does this by expanding current mortgage revenue bond 
provisions to permit homeowners to receive up to a $25,000 home 
improvement loan to repair this damage and also allows small businesses 
and landlords to use issue revenue bonds to finance loans for this same 
purpose. As

[[Page S2765]]

an added incentive, as long as the proceeds are used to purchase tax 
exempt bonds to finance the repair of Formosan Termite damage, banks 
will be allowed to deduct the interest payments on these loans.
  Obviously this legislation will not solve all of the problems 
formosan termites have caused. However, I do believe it is a good first 
step towards alleviating the burden these pests bring upon homeowners 
across the country. I urge everyone to join with me and give the 
victims of this plague a little relief. Thank you.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2446

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

     SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR INDIVIDUALS FOR LOSSES CAUSED BY 
                   FORMOSAN TERMITE DAMAGE.

       (a) Inclusion of Formosan Termite Damage as Casualty 
     Loss.--Section 165(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to limitation of deduction of losses of 
     individuals) is amended by inserting ``Formosan termite 
     damage,'' after ``shipwreck,''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 165(h)(3) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining personal casualty 
     gain) is amended by inserting ``Formosan termite damage,'' 
     after ``shipwreck,''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1999.

     SEC. 2. PROCEEDS OF MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS ALLOWED FOR LOANS 
                   TO HOMEOWNERS TO REPAIR FORMOSAN TERMITE 
                   DAMAGE.

       (a) Exception From Income Requirements.--Section 143(f) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to income 
     requirements) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(7) Exception for qualified home improvement loans.--
     Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any qualified 
     home improvement loan used for the repair of Formosan termite 
     damage.''.
       (b) Amounts up to $10,000 Used for Termite Repair Not 
     Included in Calculating Limit for Home Improvement Loan.--
     Paragraph (4) of section 143(k) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (defining qualified home improvement loan) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following flush sentence: ``In 
     calculating the $15,000 amount, any amount up to $10,000 used 
     for the repair of Formosan termite damage shall not be taken 
     into account.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 3. PROCEEDS OF SMALL ISSUE BONDS ALLOWED FOR LOANS TO 
                   LANDLORDS AND SMALL BUSINESSES TO REPAIR 
                   FORMOSAN TERMITE DAMAGE.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 144(a)(12) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to bonds to 
     finance manufacturing facilities and farm property) is 
     amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i), by 
     striking the period and inserting ``, or'' at the end of 
     clause (ii), and by adding at the end the following new 
     clause:
       ``(iii) any Formosan termite damage repair loan.''.
       (b) Definition of Formosan Termite Damage Repair Loan.--
     Section 144(a)(12) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Formosan termite damage repair loan.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `Formosan termite damage repair 
     loan' means the financing of repairs on or in connection with 
     residential rental property or property used by a small 
     business by the owner thereof, for damage caused by Formosan 
     termites.
       ``(ii) Small businesses covered.--The term `small business' 
     means, for any taxable year, any corporation or partnership 
     if the entity meets the $5,000,000 gross receipts test of 
     section 448(c) for the prior taxable year.''.
       (c) Amounts Used in Formosan Termite Repair Not Included in 
     Calculating Limit on Amount of Bond.--Clause (i) of section 
     144(a)(4)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
     to certain capital expenditures not taken into account) is 
     amended by inserting ``Formosan termite damage,'' after 
     ``storm,''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--The heading in section 
     144(a)(12)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 
     by striking ``and farm property'' and inserting ``farm 
     property, and formosan termite repair''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 4. EXCEPTION FROM VOLUME CAP FOR PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS 
                   USED TO REPAIR FORMOSAN TERMITE DAMAGE.

       (a) Exception From Volume Cap.--Section 146(g) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exception for 
     certain bonds) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end of paragraph 
     (4) and inserting a comma, and by adding after paragraph (4) 
     the following new paragraphs:
       ``(5) any qualified mortgage bond if 95 percent or more of 
     the net proceeds of the bond are to be used to provide home 
     improvement loans for the repair of Formosan termite damage, 
     and
       ``(6) any qualified small issue bond if 95 percent or more 
     of the net proceeds of the bond are to be used to provide 
     Formosan termite damage repair loans (as defined in section 
     144(a)(12)(D)).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 5. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN BONDS USED TO REPAIR FORMOSAN 
                   TERMITE DAMAGE FROM RESTRICTIONS ON DEDUCTION 
                   BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR INTEREST.

       (a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 265(b)(3)(B) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified tax-exempt 
     obligations) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of 
     subclause (I), by redesignating subclause (II) as subclause 
     (IV), and by inserting after subclause (I) the following new 
     subclauses:

       ``(II) any qualified mortgage bond if 95 percent or more of 
     the net proceeds of the bond are to be used to provide home 
     improvement loans for the repair of Formosan termite damage,
       ``(III) any qualified small issue bond if 95 percent or 
     more of the net proceeds of the bond are to be used to 
     provide Formosan termite damage repair loans (as defined in 
     section 144(a)(12)(D)), or''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 2447. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to make competitive 
grants to establish National Centers for Distance Working to provide 
assistance to individuals in rural communities to support the use of 
teleworking in information technology fields; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                          telework act of 2000

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and 
Senators Daschle and Baucus to introduce the Rural Telework Act of 
2000, a bill that is designed to make information technology (IT) 
industries a part of diverse, sustainable rural economies while helping 
IT employers find skilled workers. The goal of this bill is to link 
unemployed and underemployed individuals in rural areas and on Indian 
reservations with jobs in the IT industry through telework.
  We are in the midst of an information revolution which has the 
potential to be every bit as significant to our society and economy as 
the industrial revolution two hundred years ago. But in recent months 
there has been much discussion of the ``digital divide,'' the idea that 
one America is not able to take advantage of the promise of new 
technologies to change the way we learn, live, and work while the other 
America speeds forward into the 21st Century. As advanced 
telecommunications and informaiton technology become the new engines of 
our economy, it is critical that all no communities are left behind.
  Many rural communities and Indian reservations are already facing 
severe unemployment underemployment, and population loss due to a lack 
of economic opportunities. A study last year by the Center for Rural 
Affairs reports that widespread poverty exists in agriculturally based 
counties in a six-state region including Minnesota. Over one-third of 
households in farm counties have annual income less than $15,000 and, 
in every year from 1988 to 1997, earnings in farm counties 
significantly trailed other counties. Unemployment on many Indian 
reservations exceed 50% and remote locations make traditional 
industries uncertain agents for economic development.
  There are troubles ahead for the new economy as well: the information 
technology industry reports that it faces a dramatic shortage of 
skilled workers. The Minnesota Department of Economic Security projects 
that over the next decade, almost 8,800 workers will be needed each 
year to fill position openings in specific IT occupations. 
Approximately 1,000 students graduate each year from IT-related post-
secondary programs in Minnesota, not anywhere near enough to fill the 
demand, according to this same state agency. This shortage is reflected 
nation wide, with industry projecting

[[Page S2766]]

shortfalls of several hundred of thousand IT workers per year in coming 
years.
  Rural workers need jobs. High tech employers need workers. This 
legislation would create models of how to bring these communities 
together to find a common solution to these separate challenges.
  The Rural Telework Act of 2000 would authorize the Department of 
Agriculture to make competitive grants to qualified organizations to 
implement five year projects to train, connect, and broker employment 
in the private sector, through telework, a population of rural workers 
in their community. A grant recipient would be desgnated as a National 
Center for Distance Working. The National Centers for Distance Working, 
located in rural areas, are intended to be locally developed and 
implemented national models of how telework relationships can meet the 
needs of rural communities for new economic opportunities and the need 
of IT intensive industries for new workers.

  Mr. President, telework is a new term that may be unfamiliar to 
colleagues so I want to take a moment to explain what it is. According 
to the International Telework Association and Council (ITAC), telework 
is defined as using information and communications technologies to 
perform work away from the traditional work site typically used by the 
employer. For example, a person who works at home and transmits his or 
her work product back to the office via a modern is a teleworker, also 
known as a telecommuter; as is someone who works from a telework 
center, which is a place where many teleworkers work from--often for 
different companies.
  The nature of IT jobs allow them to be performed away from a 
traditional work site. As long as workers have the required training, 
and a means of performing work activities over a distance--through the 
use of advanced telecommunications--there is no reason that skilled IT 
jobs cannot be filled from rural communities.
  Because it essentially allows distance to be erased, telework is a 
promising tool for rural development and for making rural and 
reservation economies sustainable. Very soon, a firm located in another 
city, another state or even another country need not be viewed as a 
distant opportunity for rural residents, but as a potential employer 
only as far away as a home computer or telework center. Likewise, 
telework arrangements allow employers to draw from a national labor 
pool without the hassles and cost associated with relocation.
  Many businesses and organizations are already using telework or 
telecommuting as a tool to reduce travel and commuting times and to 
accommodate the needs and schedules of employees. Many metropolitan 
communities with high concentrations of IT industries are already 
looking to telework as a means of addressing urban and suburban ills 
such as housing shortages, traffic congestion, and pollution.
  However, the IT industry does not currently view rural America as a 
potential source of skilled employees. Nor do many rural communities 
know how to turn IT industries into a viable source of good jobs to 
revitalize local economies. Moreover, many rural community leaders fear 
that providing IT job skills to rural residents--when there are no 
opportunities for using those skills in the community--will lead to 
further population losses as retrained workers seek opportunities in 
metropolitan areas. At the same time, management of off-site employees 
requires new practices to be developed by employers and in some cases, 
dramatic paradigm shifts. Rural areas and Indian reservations are in 
danger of being left behind by a revolution which actually holds the 
most promise for those communities which are the most distant. IT 
employers risk missing a pool of potential employees with a strong work 
ethic.
  Establishment of a National Center for Distance Working in a rural 
community or Indian reservation will give that community access to 
federal resources to implement a locally designed proposal to employ 
rural residents in IT jobs through telework relationships, linking 
prospective employers with rural residents. Successful National Centers 
for Distance Work would be locally  developed and implemented national 
models for how telework can be used as a tool for rural development.

  The Department of Agriculture's Rural Utility Service (RUS) would 
administer the program which would have a $11 million annual 
authorization level. At least $10 million of authorized funds would be 
used for the purpose of making competitive grants to establish National 
Centers for Distance Working.
  Grant money made available under the program would be highly 
flexible, and would need to be leveraged with private, local and state 
resources. For example, they could be used to provide or enhance the 
quality of: IT skills training and education, technology and 
telecommunications, promotion of teleworking, brokering employment for 
rural IT workers, and other necessary elements to establish IT work 
opportunities in that rural community.
  The funds are not intended to duplicate existing federal training and 
connectivity programs. Nor is it intended that Centers use these funds 
to supplant existing telecommunications providers who offer appropriate 
services to make telework a reality in rural communities. Rather, the 
federal investment is targeted to augment these existing sources of 
funding and allow rural communities to fill in the gaps in existing 
public and private resources and services. Prospective grant recipients 
would need to form partnerships with local, state, and private 
entities, including potential employers.
  The grants made available under this program would not be sufficient 
to cover the full cost of training, connecting, and employing rural 
workers, but are intended to be ``seed money'' leveraged with dollars 
from other sources. Grant recipients would be required to match the 
funds provided under this program with funds from non-federal sources.
  Finally, up to $1 million of the $11 million could be used by RUS to 
make grants for the purpose of promoting the development of teleworking 
in rural areas by making grants to entities to conduct research on 
economics, operational, social, and policy issues related to 
teleworking in rural areas, including the development of best practices 
for businesses that employ teleworkers.
  The necessary vision of how to make telework a reality already exists 
in some employers and in some rural communities. In Sebeka, Minnesota--
a town with a population of little more than 600 people--a small firm 
called Cross Consulting was founded. That company employs over 20 
people through a contract with Northwest Airlines to provide do 
programming on Northwest's mainframe computers. These people are rural 
teleworkers. The new economy is not leaving Sebeka behind and we need 
to incubate that kind of innovation in rural areas and Indian 
reservations across the country.
  Mr. President, for many jobs, in many industries, telework may be the 
future of work. It may also be the future of diverse, sustainable rural 
economies. This legislation offers an early opportunity to invest in 
local innovation to harness this potential.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2447

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Telework Act of 
     2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) many rural communities and Indian reservations have not 
     benefited from the historic economic expansion in recent 
     years, and high levels of unemployment and underemployment 
     persist in the rural communities and reservations;
       (2) many economic opportunities, especially in information 
     technology fields, are located away from many rural 
     communities and reservations;
       (3) the United States has a significant and growing need 
     for skilled information technology workers;
       (4) unemployed and underemployed rural employees represent 
     a potential workforce to fill information technology jobs;
       (5) teleworking allows rural employees to perform skill 
     intensive information technology jobs from their communities 
     for firms located outside rural communities; and
       (6) employing a rural teleworkforce in information 
     technology fields will require--

[[Page S2767]]

       (A) employers that are willing to hire rural residents or 
     contract for work to be performed in rural communities;
       (B) recruitment and training of rural residents appropriate 
     for work in information technology fields;
       (C) means of connecting employers with employees through 
     advanced telecommunications services; and
       (D) innovative approaches and collaborative models to 
     create rural technology business opportunities and facilitate 
     the employment of rural individuals.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to make 
     competitive grants to establish National Centers for Distance 
     Working in rural areas to provide assistance to individuals 
     in rural communities to support the use of teleworking in 
     information technology fields;
       (2) to promote teleworking arrangements, small electronic 
     business development, and creation of information technology 
     jobs in rural areas for the purpose of creating sustainable 
     economic opportunities in rural communities;
       (3) to promote the practice of teleworking to information 
     technology jobs among rural, urban, and suburban residents, 
     Indian tribes, job training and workforce development 
     providers, educators, and employers;
       (4) to meet the needs of information technology and other 
     industries for skilled employees by accelerating the training 
     and hiring of rural employees to fill existing and future 
     jobs from rural communities and Indian reservations;
       (5) to promote teleworking and small electronic business as 
     sustainable income sources for rural communities and Indian 
     tribes; and
       (6) to study, collect information, and develop best 
     practices for rural teleworking employment practices.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL CENTERS FOR DISTANCE WORKING PROGRAM.

       Subtitle D of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1981 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 376. NATIONAL CENTERS FOR DISTANCE WORKING PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Center.--The term `Center' means a National Center 
     for Distance Working established under subsection (b) that 
     receives a grant under this section.
       ``(2) Eligible organization.--The term `eligible 
     organization' means a nonprofit entity, an educational 
     institution, a tribal government, or any other organization 
     that meets the requirements of this section and such other 
     requirements as are established by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Information technology.--The term `information 
     technology' means any equipment, or interconnected system or 
     subsystem of equipment, that is used in the automatic 
     acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, 
     control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or 
     reception of data or information, including a computer, 
     ancillary equipment, software, firmware and similar 
     procedures, services (including support services), and 
     related resources.
       ``(4) Rural area.--The terms `rural' and `rural area' have 
     the meaning given the terms in section 381A.
       ``(5) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary, 
     acting through the Administrator of the Rural Utility 
     Service.
       ``(6) Teleworking.--The term `teleworking' means the use of 
     telecommunications to perform work functions over a distance 
     and to reduce or eliminate the need to perform work at a 
     traditional worksite.
       ``(b) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a National 
     Centers for Distance Working Program under which the 
     Secretary shall make competitive grants to eligible 
     organizations to pay the Federal share of the cost of 
     establishing National Centers for Distance Working in rural 
     areas to conduct projects in accordance with subsection (c).
       ``(2) Eligible organization.--The Secretary shall establish 
     criteria that an organization must meet to be eligible to 
     receive a grant under this section.
       ``(c) Projects.--A Center shall use a grant received under 
     this section to conduct a 5-year project--
       ``(1) to provide training, referral, assessment, and 
     employment-related services and assistance to individuals in 
     rural communities and Indian tribes to support the use of 
     teleworking in information technology fields, including 
     services and assistance related to high technology training, 
     telecommunications infrastructure, capital equipment, job 
     placement services, and other means of promoting teleworking;
       ``(2) to identify skills that are needed by the business 
     community and that will enable trainees to secure employment 
     after the completion of training;
       ``(3) to recruit employers for rural individuals and 
     residents of Indian reservations;
       ``(4) to provide for high-speed communications between the 
     individuals in the targeted rural community or reservation 
     and employers that carry out information technology work that 
     is suitable for teleworking;
       ``(5) to provide for access to or ownership of the 
     facilities, hardware, software, and other equipment necessary 
     to perform information technology jobs; and
       ``(6) to perform such other functions as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate.
       ``(d) Eligibility Criteria.--
       ``(1) Application and plan.--As a condition of receiving a 
     grant under this section for use with respect to a rural 
     area, an organization shall submit to the Secretary, and 
     obtain the approval of the Secretary of, an application and 
     5-year plan for the use of the grant to carry out a project 
     described in subsection (c), including a description of--
       ``(A) the businesses and employers that will provide 
     employment opportunities in the rural area;
       ``(B) fundraising strategies;
       ``(C) training and training delivery methods to be 
     employed;
       ``(D) the rural community of individuals to be targeted to 
     receive assistance;
       ``(E) any support from State and local governments and 
     other non-Federal sources; and
       ``(F) outreach activities to be carried out to reach 
     potential information technology employers.
       ``(2) Non-federal share.--
       ``(A) In general.--As a condition of receiving a grant 
     under this section, an organization shall agree to obtain, 
     after the application of the organization has been approved 
     and notice of award has been issued, contributions from non-
     Federal sources that are equal to--
       ``(i) during each of the first, second, and third years of 
     a project, 1 non-Federal dollar for each 2 Federal dollars 
     provided under the grant; and
       ``(ii) during each of the fourth and fifth years of the 
     project, 1 non-Federal dollar for each Federal dollar 
     provided under the grant.
       ``(B) Indian tribes.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), an 
     Indian tribe may use Federal funds made available to the 
     tribe for self-governance to pay the non-Federal 
     contributions required under subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Form.--The non-Federal contributions required under 
     subparagraph (A) may be in the form of in-kind contributions, 
     including office equipment, office space, and services.
       ``(e) Selection Criteria.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) establish criteria for the selection of eligible 
     organizations to receive grants under this section; and
       ``(B) evaluate, rank, and select eligible organizations on 
     the basis of the selection criteria.
       ``(2) Factors.--The selection criteria established under 
     paragraph (1) shall include--
       ``(A) the experience of the eligible organization in 
     conducting programs or ongoing efforts designed to improve or 
     upgrade the skills of rural employees or members of Indian 
     tribes;
       ``(B) the ability of the eligible organization to initiate 
     a project within a minimum period of time;
       ``(C) the ability and experience of the eligible 
     organization in providing training to rural individuals who 
     are economically disadvantaged or who face significant 
     barriers to employment;
       ``(D) the ability and experience of the eligible 
     organization in conducting information technology skill 
     training;
       ``(E) the degree to which the eligible organization has 
     entered into partnerships or contracts with local, tribal, 
     and State governments, community-based organizations, and 
     prospective employers to provide training, employment, and 
     supportive services;
       ``(F) the ability and experience of the eligible 
     organization in providing job placement for rural employees 
     with employers that are suitable for teleworking;
       ``(G) the computer and telecommunications equipment that 
     the eligible organization has or expects to possess or use 
     under contract on initiation of the project; and
       ``(H) the means the applicant proposes, such as high-speed 
     Internet access, to allow communication between rural 
     employees and employers.
       ``(3) Publication.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) publish the selection criteria established under this 
     subsection in the Federal Register; and
       ``(B) include a description of the selection criteria in 
     any solicitation for applications for grants made by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(f) Studies of Teleworking.--
       ``(1) In general.--To promote the development of 
     teleworking in rural areas, the Secretary may make grants to 
     entities to conduct research on economic, operational, 
     social, and policy issues relating to teleworking in rural 
     areas, including the development of best practices for 
     businesses that employ teleworkers.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The Secretary shall use not more than 
     $1,000,000 of funds made available for a fiscal year under 
     subsection (g) to carry out this subsection.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $11,000,000 for 
     each fiscal year.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK:
  S. 2449. A bill to combat trafficking of persons, especially into the 
sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like conditions, in the United States 
and countries around the world through prevention, prosecution, and 
enforcement against traffickers, and through protection and assistance 
to victims of trafficking; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

[[Page S2768]]

             The International Anti-Trafficking Act of 2000

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation 
entitled the International Anti-Trafficking Act of 2000 which combats 
the insidious practice of trafficking of persons worldwide.
  As we begin the 21st Century, the degrading institution of slavery 
continues throughout the world. Sex trafficking is a modern day form of 
slavery, and it is the largest manifestation of slavery in the world 
today.
  Every year, approximately 1 million women and children are forced 
into the sex trade against their will, internationally. They are 
usually transported across international borders so as to ``shake'' 
local authorities, leaving the victims defenseless in a foreign 
country, virtually held hostage in a strange land. It is estimated that 
at least 50,000 women and children are brought into the United States 
annually, for this purpose. The numbers are staggering, and growing 
rapidly. Some report that over 30 million women and children have been 
enslaved in this manner since the 1970's. I believe this is one of the 
most shocking and rampant human rights abuses worldwide.
  One of two methods, fraud or force, is used to obtain victims. The 
most common method, ``fraud,'' is used with villagers in under-
developed areas. Typically the ``buyer'' promises the parents that he 
is taking their young daughter to the city to become a nanny or 
domestic servant, giving the parents a few hundred dollars as a ``down 
payment'' for the future money she will earn for the family. Then the 
girl is transported across international borders, deposited in a 
brothel and forced into the trade, until she is no longer useful 
(becoming sick with AIDS). She is held against her will under the 
rationale that she must ``work off'' her debt which was paid to the 
parents, which typically takes several years. The second method used 
for obtaining victims is ``force'' which is used in the cities, where a 
girl is physically abducted, beaten, and held against her will, 
sometimes in chains. The routes are specific and definable, and include 
Burma to Thailand, Eastern Europe to the Middle East, and Nepal to 
India, among numerous other routes, through which victims of this 
practice are channeled.
  Presently, no comprehensive legislation has been adopted, yet, which 
holistically challenges the practice of trafficking and assists the 
victims. I am introducing this legislation, the International Anti-
Trafficking Act of 2000, today as a companion to the legislation 
introduced by Congressman Chris Smith and Congressman Sam Gejdenson, 
known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (H.R. 3244). 
Senator Wellstone has also introduced legislation which closely mirrors 
the Smith-Gejdenson bill. Our primary difference is the methods for 
enforcement. Unless the President implements one of the broad waivers 
granted to him in this legislation, non-humanitarian, non-trade foreign 
assistance (listed under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) to 
countries will be suspended if countries fail to meet the minimum 
standard to stop the flow of traffickers in their own countries. Please 
note that there is an extremely broad national interest waiver 
provision granted to the President which allows him to exempt any and 
all programs, as well as an additional waiver which allows the 
President to guard against any adverse effect on vulnerable victims of 
trafficking, including women and children.
  This bill presents a comprehensive scheme to ``penalize the full 
range of offenses'' involved in elaborate trafficking networks. It also 
provides a doorway of freedom for those who are presently enslaved 
throughout the world and promotes their recovery in civil society. Some 
of the provisions include: establishment of an Interagency Task Force 
to Monitor and Combat Trafficking, enhanced reporting by the State 
Department on this practice, protection and assistance for victims of 
trafficking, changes in immigration status allowing victims to stay to 
testify in prosecutions, strengthens prosecution and punishment of 
traffickers, among other provisions.
  In short, we believe it's time to challenge this evil slavery 
practice known as trafficking, and I believe this legislation is a 
first step to gaining freedom for those who are presently bound.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COVERDELL:
  S. 2452. A bill to reduce the reading deficit in the United States by 
applying the findings of scientific research in reading instruction to 
all students who are learning to read the English language and to amend 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve literacy 
through family literacy projects and to reauthorize the inexpensive 
book distribution program; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.


                READING DEFICIT ELIMINATION ACT OF 2000

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, America has a reading deficit! 
According to the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), 41 million 
adults are unable to perform even the simplest literacy tasks. The most 
recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) conducted in 
1998 continues to show that almost 70 percent of 4th grade students 
cannot read at a proficient level. Even worse, 40 percent of those 4th 
graders could not read at even a basic level for their grade.
  In short, Mr. President, unless we treat this situation as the 
national emergency that it is--and soon--the next decade will see an 
astonishing 70 percent of our 4th grade students joining the ranks of 
those 41 million American adults who are unable to perform simple 
literacy tasks.
  The ability to read the English language with fluency and 
comprehension is essential if individuals, old and young, are to reach 
their full potential in any field of endeavor. As the saying goes, 
``reading is fundamental.''
  And the statistics bear that out as well. Workers who lack a high 
school diploma earn a mean monthly income of $452, compared to $1,829 
for those with a bachelor's degree. Forty three percent of people with 
the lowest literacy skills live in poverty, 17 percent receive food 
stamps, and 70 percent have no job or a part-time job.
  And make no mistake that the nation itself and not just individuals 
will suffer. If our children are not taught to read, who will man our 
high tech defenses or fill the high tech jobs in America's future?
  Compounding these astounding statistics, Mr. President, the 1998 NAEP 
also found that minority students on average continue to lag far behind 
in reading proficiency, even though many of them are in Title I 
programs of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or participated 
in Head Start programs.
  Clearly, throwing taxpayer money at the problem does not work. Our 
children's reading scores continue to decline or remain stagnant, even 
though Congress has spent more than $120 million over the past 30 years 
for academic enrichment programs under Title I and other federal 
efforts ostensibly with the primary purpose of improving reading skills 
among disadvantaged children.
  It should also be pointed out that more than half of the students 
being placed in the special learning disabilities category of our 
Special Education programs are there in large part because they have 
not learned to read. The national cost of special education at the 
federal, state, and local levels now exceeds $60 billion each year. The 
National Institute for Child Health and Human Development says that 90-
95 percent of these students could learn to read and be returned to 
their regular classrooms if they were given instruction using 
scientifically based reading principles. This would result in over $12 
billion in savings nationwide every year by eliminating the need for 
special education for these children.
  In response to these disturbing national statistics concerning the 
inability of so many children to read, I worked with Representative 
Bill Goodling--Chairman of the Education Committee in the House of 
Representatives--to develop the Reading Deficit Elimination Act of 
2000, which I am introducing today.
  By providing funds for teacher training, textbook and curriculum 
purchases, student assessments, teacher bonuses, and tuition assistance 
grants to parents, this legislation offers the States a helping hand in 
teaching students nationwide to read. Unlike the unfunded mandates that 
have failed in the past, this legislation will give states and 
communities funds to institute reading instruction based on years

[[Page S2769]]

of federally sponsored research, giving them the ability and the 
flexibility to help our children succeed.
  The National Reading Panel--requested by Congress and created by the 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development--released its 
report just this morning on scientifically-based reading instruction 
and research in a hearing of the Senate's Labor/HHS Appropriations 
Subcommittee chaired by Senator Cochran.
  The report clearly articulates the most effective approaches to 
teaching children to read, the status of the research on reading, 
reading instruction practices that are ready to be used by teachers in 
classrooms around the country, and a plan to rapidly disseminate the 
findings to teachers and parents. The report also constitutes the most 
comprehensive review of existing reading research to be undertaken in 
American education history. Panel members identified more than 100,000 
research studies completed since 1966, developed and submitted them to 
rigorous criteria for their review.
  A major finding of the report was that systematic phonics instruction 
is one of the necessary components of a total reading program. 
Similarly, the NRP also found that the sequence of reading instruction 
that obtains maximum benefits for students should include instruction 
in phonemic awareness, systematic phonics, reading fluency, spelling, 
writing and reading comprehension strategies. We must use the knowledge 
of reading skills and the principles for teaching reading skills gained 
from these studies from the government and the private sector to reduce 
the number of individuals and students who cannot read.
  The programs and provisions in the Reading Deficit Elimination Act of 
2000 are based on these finding by the National Reading Panel.
  Mr. President, Frederick Douglass, arguably the most influential 
African American of the nineteenth century said, ``Once you learn to 
read, you will be forever free.'' Douglass knew the importance of 
freedom, and he knew the importance of literacy. The ability to read 
the English language with fluency and comprehension is essential if 
individuals are to reach their full potential in any endeavor. Again, 
as the saying goes: ``Reading is fundamental.'' No one should be left 
behind because they can't read. We must not limit the success of the 
next generation by allowing them to continue down the path of 
illiteracy. We must teach them to read and give them this fundamental 
tool they need to succeed in life as well as in school.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS (for himself and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 2454. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to authorize 
low-power television stations to provide digital data services to 
subscribers; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record. 
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2454

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

     SECTION 1. PROVISION OF DIGITAL DATA SERVICES BY LOW-POWER 
                   TELEVISION STATIONS.

       Section 336 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     336) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
       ``(h) LPTV Provision of Digital Data Services.--
       ``(1) In general.--A low-power television station may 
     utilize its authorized spectrum to provide digital data 
     services to the public by subscription.
       ``(2) Notice required.--Before providing such services 
     under paragraph (1), a low-power television station shall 
     provide notice to the Commission in such form and at such 
     time as the Commission may require.
       ``(3) Protection from interference.--The Commission may not 
     authorize any new service, television broadcast station, or 
     modification of any existing authority that would result in 
     the displacement of, or predicted interference with, a low-
     power television station providing such services.
       ``(4) Protection of television signals.--The Commission 
     shall prevent interference with television signal reception 
     from low-power television stations providing such services.
       ``(5) Digital data service defined.--In this subsection, 
     the term `digital data service' includes--
       ``(A) digitally-based interactive broadcast service; and
       ``(B) wireless Internet access, without regard to whether 
     such access is--
       ``(i) provided on a one-way or a two-way basis;
       ``(ii) portable or fixed; or
       ``(iii) connected to the Internet via a band allocated to 
     Interactive Video and Data Service, and

     without regard to the technology employed in delivering such 
     service, including the delivery of such service via multiple 
     transmitters at multiple locations.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
        Allard, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Bunning, 
        Mr. Burns, Mr. Campbell, Mr. L. Chafee, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
        Conrad, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
        DeWine, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Edwards, Mr. 
        Enzi, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Frist, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Grams, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hollings, Mr. 
        Hutchinson, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
        Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
        Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lott, Mr. Mack, Mr. 
        McCain, Mr. McConnell, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. 
        Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Roth, Mr. Santorum, 
        Mr. Schumer, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith of New 
        Hampshire, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
        Stevens, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. 
        Warner):
  S. 2453. A bill to authorize the President to award a gold medal on 
behalf of Congress to Pope John Paul II in recognition of his 
outstanding and enduring contributions to humanity, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


             congressional gold medal for pope john paul ii

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Pope John Paul II.
  Mr. President, Pope John Paul II is the most recognized person in the 
world, having personally visited tens of millions, in almost every 
continent and country. He has been one of the greatest pastoral leaders 
of this century, fearlessly guiding the Catholic Church into the new 
millennium. Due to his tremendous faith and leadership he was elected 
bishop at a very early age, and elected to the papacy on October 16, 
1978, at the age of 58.
  Though many people see the Pope as an important statesman, diplomat, 
and political figure, Pope John Paul II is much more than that. As 
spiritual leader to the world's 1 billion Catholics, the Pope has 
commenced a great dialog with modern culture, one that transcends the 
boundaries of political or economic ideology.
  As have his predecessors of happy memory, he stands boldly as an ever 
vigilant sign of contradiction to a culture that is darkened by the 
clouds of death. In the face of this mounting storm, he has tirelessly 
proclaimed the need for a culture of life.
  In what is now one of the Pope's most famous encyclicals, and the one 
which he regards to be the most significant of this pontificate, 
Evangelium Vitae (the Gospel of Life), the argues powerfully for an 
increased respect for all human life:

       Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and 
     with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the 
     name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the 
     genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: ``Whatever is 
     opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, 
     abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever 
     violates the integrity of the human person, such as 
     mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to 
     coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such 
     as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, 
     deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and 
     children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where 
     people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as 
     free and responsible persons; all these things and others 
     like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and 
     they do more harm to those who practice them than to those 
     who

[[Page S2770]]

     suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor 
     to the Creator.''

  That is from the Pope's Evangelium.
  Mr. President, the urgency of this message--the Pope's message--
becomes more acute by the day; particularly at the beginning of the new 
millennium.
  The Pope, having witnessed first-hand the brutal inhumanity of Nazi 
and Communist regimes, understands, in a way few of us can appreciate, 
the true dignity of each and every human being. He is a crusader 
against the offenses against human dignity that have transpired in the 
20th century. More than any other single person this century, Pope John 
Paul II has worked to protect the rights of each individual.
  As well, John Paul II has addressed almost every major question posed 
by the modern mind at the turn of the millennium.
  As noted by the biographer of the Pope, George Weigel, the Pope has 
provided answers to the questions and desires facing today's world: The 
human yearning for the sacred, the meaning of freedom, the quest for a 
new world order, the nature of good and evil, the moral challenge of 
prosperity, and the imperative of human solidarity in the emerging 
global civilization. Through his teaching, the Pope has brought the 
timeless principles of truth contained in the gospel into 
active conversation with contemporary life and thought. The Pope has 
started a peaceful dialogue between ideas of the modern world and the 
age-old truths contained in the Gospel message.

  One of the gospel messages emphasized by the Pope is the need for 
forgiveness and reconciliation with God, and with our sisters and 
brothers. A week before his historic personal pilgrimage to the Holy 
Land the Pope asked forgiveness from God on behalf of Christians who 
were inactive, or who were not active enough in opposing the forces of 
evil that have ravaged humanity during the past century.
  This apology preceded his recent personal pilgrimage to the Holy 
Land; a pilgrimage in which the Pope opened up yet another dialog--this 
time with the people of the Middle East--a region ripped apart by 
centuries old conflict, bitterness, and war. Again, in the Holy Land, 
he empathized with those who suffered under the tyranny of the Nazi 
regime. The Pope highlighted during his trip, and he has on other 
occasions, his deep compassion for those who suffered under the 
brutality of Hitler's Germany and their genocidal war.
  In the midst of the conflict in the Holy Land, the Pope again shone 
through as a beacon of light and peace as he proclaimed yet again to 
the people of the Middle East and the World, the universal calls to 
holiness.
  As the New York Times so eloquently noted after the Pope's visit to 
Jerusalem's Yad Vashem:

       John Paul has done more than any modern pope to end the 
     estrangement between Catholics and Jews. He was the first 
     pope to pray in a synagogue, the first to acknowledge the 
     failure of individual Catholics to deter the Holocaust and 
     the first to call anti-Semitism a sin ``against God and 
     man.''
       There is a valedictory quality to the Pope's actions and 
     travels as the church approaches its third millennium. He 
     seems determined to trace the birth of Christianity in this 
     epochal year, to right the wrongs of the church and to bring 
     a spirit of conciliation to the Middle East. Not long ago he 
     went to Egypt and visited Mount Sinai, where Moses received 
     God's law. This week he stood atop Mount Nebo in Jordan and 
     looked across the Promised Land. He prayed in silence near 
     the places where Jesus was born and baptized. Most people as 
     infirm as John Paul would not dare make such strenuous trips. 
     But he seems to be a man on a mission, and the world is 
     better for it.

  That was from the New York Times.
  He is indeed a man on a mission. His message was peacefully conveyed 
in the Middle East to peoples with whom he has obvious deep religious 
differences. His serenity in the midst of such turmoil, as well as his 
obvious love for all people should be a model for us all as we 
encounter people in our daily life with whom we radically disagree, or 
with whom we have had a difficult relationship.
  His epoch journey to the Holy Land will be remembered by history. 
And, I have no doubt that his presence there will leave a lasting 
impression, and I hope that it will work to bring about true peace as 
well.
  His trip to the Middle East is just one particular example. The 
Pope's dialog with the modern era has taken him across the world, and 
has brought the Church into active conversation with people that many 
in the modern world have chosen to either forget or to ignore. It is a 
dialog that is ultimately a challenge to the people of the United 
States as well.
  For example, his trip to Cuba initiated a dialog between politically 
opposed forces both here in America and in Cuba.
  Also, Pope John Paul II's recent call to forgive the debt incurred by 
Third World countries during the past century, was and is, a challenge 
to the industrialized nations of the world to join hands in an effort 
to begin lifting the forgotten people of heavily indebted countries 
into the next millennium by providing some of the economic relief that 
they need. This is the challenge presented to those in industrialized 
countries, to remember and to help those who are less fortunate.
  The legislation I just introduced has been cosponsored by 66 of my 
Senate colleagues, and I am hopeful that we can pass this legislation 
quickly in order to honor so great a man who has done such great 
things.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S.J. Res. 45. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to allow the States to limit the 
period of time United States Senators and Representatives may serve; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


amendment to constitution of the united states to allow states to limit 
the period of time united states senators and representatives may serve

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint 
resolution proposing a constitutional amendment regarding Congressional 
term limits and the ability of States to set term limits for members of 
the United States Congress. Mr. President, I would like to summarize 
the history of this proposed constitutional amendment.
  On November 29, 1994, the Clinton administration argued before the 
Supreme Court of the United States that States should not have the 
right to limit congressional terms. Thus, the executive branch has 
spoken against the right of the states and of the people to limit the 
number of terms individuals may serve in the U.S. Congress.
  On May 23rd, 1995, in U.S. Term Limits v. Thorton (514 U.S. 779), the 
Supreme Court denied the people the right to limit congressional terms. 
Before the court ruling, 23 states, including my home state of 
Missouri, had some limit on the number of terms members of Congress 
could serve.
  In a 5-4 decision, the Court invalidated measures which represented 
over five years of work and were supported by 25 million voters. These 
voters wanted nothing more than to rein in congressional power, restore 
competitive elections, and create a Congress that looked, and 
legislated, like America.
  Both the executive branch, through the Clinton administration, and 
the judicial branch, have spoken against the right of States and of the 
people to limit the terms of individuals who represent them in 
Congress.
  There has been limited debate on terms limits in this Congress. In 
1995, the House of Representatives fell well short of the two-thirds 
majority required to forward to the people a constitutional amendment 
on term limits. Of the 290-vote margin required for a constitutional 
amendment, they mustered only 227 votes. What would normally be a 
significant majority vote in the House, was clearly not enough to 
ensure that States would have the opportunity to vote on a 
constitutional amendment permitting term limits.
  One hope for the overwhelming number of people in this country who 
endorse term limits is for Congress to extend them the opportunity to 
amend the Constitution in a way that would allow individual States to 
limit the terms members of Congress may serve. More than 3 out of 4 
people in the United States endorse the concept of term limits. They 
have watched individuals come to Washington and spend time here, 
captivated by the Beltway logic, the spending habits and the power that 
exists in this city. The people of America know that the talent pool in 
America is substantial and there are many who ought to have the 
opportunity to serve in Congress. Furthermore, they know that term 
limits

[[Page S2771]]

would ensure that individuals who go to Washington return someday to 
live under the very laws that they enact.
  In January of 1995, Senator Thompson and I introduced a 
constitutional amendment that would have limited members of Congress to 
three terms in the House and two terms in the Senate. As a result of 
its defeat and of the administration's refusal to recognize the will of 
the people, in May of 1995, I introduced S.J. Res. 36, a different kind 
of constitutional amendment. This amendment simply would give States 
the explicit right to limit congressional terms. It would not mandate 
that any State limit the nature or extent of the terms of the 
individuals who represent it in the Congress. Instead, it would give 
the States, if they chose to do so, the right to limit the members' 
terms who represent that State. I am reintroducing that amendment 
today.
  In the Thornton case, Justice Thomas wrote, ``Where the Constitution 
is silent it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.'' I 
believe he is correct. This is the concept embodied in the often 
forgotten Tenth Amendment that would not cede all power to the federal 
government, only to have it doled back to us where the federal 
government thinks it appropriate. This proposed amendment is offered to 
rectify that situation.
  The people of this Republic should have the opportunity to limit the 
terms of those who serve them in Congress. In light of the fact that 
the administration has argued against term limits, the executive branch 
is not going to support term limits, and because the judicial branch 
has ruled conclusively now that the States have no constitutional 
authority to act in this area, it is up to those of us in Congress to 
give the people the opportunity to be heard on this issue.
  We must, at least, give them the opportunity to vote on that right by 
sending to them this joint resolution on the right of States and 
individuals to limit members' terms who serve the States and the 
districts of those States in the U.S. Congress.
  It is a profoundly important expression of our confidence in the 
people of this country to extend to them the right to be involved in 
making this judgment. I submit this joint resolution today in the hopes 
that democracy will continue to flourish as people have greater 
opportunities to be involved.

                          ____________________