[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 70 (Thursday, June 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4834-S4854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





             SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER PROTECTION ACT OF 2000

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join the 
administration and, particularly the Vice President, in introducing the 
Social Security Number Protection Act of 2000.
  This legislation is designed to curb the unregulated sale and 
purchase of Social Security numbers, which have contributed 
significantly to a growing range of illegal activities, including 
fraud, identity theft, and, in some cases, stalking and other violent 
crimes.
  Mr. President, in 1997, I introduced S. 600, the Personal Privacy 
Information Act, with Senator Grassley after watching in dismay as one 
of my staff downloaded my own Social Security number off of the 
Internet in less than three minutes.
  Nothing much has changed. For a mere $45, one can go online and 
purchase a person's Social Security number from a whole host of web 
businesses--no questions asked.
  Why is it so important to stop the commercial sale of individuals' 
personal Social Security numbers? Once a criminal has a potential 
victim's Social Security number, that person becomes extremely 
vulnerable to having his or her whereabouts tracked and his or her 
identity stolen.
  The Social Security number is the Nation's de facto national 
identifier. It is a key to one's public identity. The Federal 
Government uses it as a taxpayer identification number, the Medicare 
number, and as a soldier's serial number. States use the Social 
Security number as the identification number on drivers' licenses, 
fishing licenses, and other official records. Banks use it to establish 
personal identification for credit. The number is requested by 
telephone companies, gas companies, and even by brokerages when 
consumers set-up personal accounts.
  Thus, a criminal who purchases a Social Security number is well on 
his way to fraudulently obtaining numerous services in the name of an 
unsuspecting American.
  Partly due to this unrestricted traffic in Social Security numbers, 
our country is facing an explosion in identity theft crimes. The Social 
Security Administration recently reported that it had received more 
than 30,000 complaints about the misuse of Social Security numbers, 
last year, most of which had to do with identity theft. This is an 
increase of 350% from 1997, when there were 7,868 complaints. In total, 
Treasury Department officials estimate that identity theft causes 
between $2 and $3 billion in losses each year--just from credit cards.
  According to a recent survey of identity theft victims published 
jointly by the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and CALPIRG, the average 
identity theft victim has fraudulent charges of $18,000 made in his 
name. Typically, an identity theft victim spends approximately 175 
hours of personal time over a two-year period to clean-up his credit 
record.
  Sometimes, this unrestricted sale of personal information can have 
tragic results. Amy Boyer, a twenty-year old dental assistant in New 
Hampshire, was killed last year by a stalker who bought her Social 
Security number off an Internet web site for $45. Armed with this 
critical information, he tracked her down to her work address.
  Here are some other examples of Social Security number misuse. Kim 
Brady, a constituent from Castro Valley, California, wrote to me that 
an identity thief obtained a credit card in her name on the Internet. 
The application ``was approved in 10 seconds even though the 
application only had [her] name, Social Security number, and birth date 
correct.'' When Ms. Bradbury contacted credit card companies and asked 
how a credit card was issued in her name despite false information on 
the application, the companies said they only look to ``see that the 
name and the Social Security number match.''
  Another California constituent, Michelle Brown of Hermosa Beach, 
informed me that a criminal used her Social Security number to 
fraudulently assume her identity. The perpetrator rang up a total of 
$50,000 in charges including a $32,000 truck and $5,000 worth of 
liposuction. In addition, the perpetrator used Michelle's identity to 
establish wireless and residential telephone service, utilities 
service, and to obtain a year-long residential lease.

  Michelle notes that she has spent hundreds of hours trying to restore 
her good name and has endured ``weeks of sleepless nights, suffering 
from nearly no appetite, and nerve-shattering moments of my life 
spinning out of control.''
  In another case, a retired air force officer was falsely billed for 
$113,000 on 33 different credit accounts after identity

[[Page S4835]]

thieves stole his Social Security number. He and his wife have dealt 
with over a dozen third party collection agencies. They are also being 
sued by a furniture store in Texas and have had five automobiles 
purchased in their name.
  I am pleased to work with the Administration on this bill because no 
one should seek to profit from the sale of Social Security numbers in 
circumstances that create a substantial risk of physical, emotional, or 
financial harm to the person to whom these numbers are assigned.
  What would this bill do? The Social Security Number Protection Act 
would impose criminal and civil penalties for the sale and purchase of 
Social Security numbers. Specifically, it would direct the Federal 
Trade Commission to issue regulations prohibiting this sale.
  The legislation would direct the FTC to permit exceptions to this ban 
in a very narrow range of circumstances, including where an individual 
has consented to the sale, for law enforcement or national security 
reasons, in emergency situations to protect an individual's health and 
safety, for research or public health purposes, and where the use of 
the Social Security number is for a lawful purpose and is unlikely to 
result in serious bodily, emotional, or financial harm of a Social 
Security number holder.
  Mr. President, I think this is a very important step forward. The 
bill is carefully drawn. It simply prevents the sale of Social Security 
numbers for profit, which can result in enormous wrongdoing to the 
individual Social Security number holder.
  I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. L. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Smith of New 
        Hampshire, and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 2700. A bill to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to promote the cleanup and 
reuse of brownfields, to provide financial assistance for brownfields 
revitalization, to enhance State response programs, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


  BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION ACT OF 2000

  Mr. L. CHAFEE. I rise today to introduce the Brownfields 
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2000 together with 
Senator Lautenberg, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, and Senator Baucus. 
We are introducing this bill today because we support legislation that 
will expedite cleanup of our nation's hazardous waste sites. We support 
economic development in our neighborhoods and job creation in our 
cities. We also support invigorating our urban cores and bolstering 
local governments. Mr. President, we are introducing this legislation 
today because, if enacted, it has the potential to fulfill these 
objectives, which are important to me and I believe to every Senator.
  Brownfields are typically older commercial or industrial properties 
at which development is hindered by the presence--or even the potential 
presence--of hazardous substances. Countless numbers of brownfield 
sites blight our communities, pose health and environmental hazards, 
erode our cities' tax base, and contribute to urban sprawl. In fact, 
the U.S. Conference of Mayors has estimated that more than 450,000 
brownfield sites exist nationwide. But, we stand to reap enormous 
economic, environmental, and social benefits with the successful 
redevelopment of brownfield sites. The redevelopment of brownfields 
capitalizes on existing infrastructure, creates a robust tax base for 
local governments, attracts new businesses and jobs, reduces the 
environmental and health risks to communities, and preserves community 
character. This can truly be a victory for everyone.
  While everyone agrees that brownfield sites should be cleaned up, 
presently there are many problems that prevent us from cleaning up 
these sites. Let me address the problems and how our legislation poses 
solutions.
  Problem: There is not enough funding to address the large number of 
brownfield sites that exist.
  Solution: The bill authorizes $150 million per year to state and 
local governments to perform assessments and cleanup at brownfield 
sites. It also authorizes $50 million per year to establish and enhance 
State brownfield programs.
  Problem: Communities that strive to clean up sites, such as Riverside 
Mills alongside the Woonasquatucket River in Providence, in order to 
turn them into greenspace, cannot since there will be no future income 
stream to repay a loan.
  Solution: The bill will allow EPA to issue grants to state and local 
governments to clean up sites that will be converted into parks or open 
space.
  Problem: People who bought brownfield sites and did not cause the 
contamination could be liable under Superfund.
  Solution: The bill clarifies that innocent landowners, that act 
appropriately, are not responsible for paying cleanup costs.
  Problem: Developers that want to purchase brownfield sites may be 
liable for future cleanup costs.
  Solution: The bill encourages developers to purchase and develop 
brownfield sites by exempting from liability prospective purchasers 
that do not cause or worsen the contamination at a site.
  Problem: Superfund liability issues prevent development of areas near 
contaminated sites.
  Solution: The bill includes an exemption from Superfund liability for 
contiguous property owners.
  Problem: Investors do not clean up brownfield sites because for fear 
that EPA will ``second-guess'' their actions.
  Solution: The bill offers finality by precluding EPA from taking an 
action at a site being addressed under a state cleanup program unless 
there is an ``imminent and substantial endangerment'' to public health 
or the environment, and additional work needs to be done.
  I am proud to introduce this bill with my esteemed colleagues from 
the Environment and Public Works Committee. The fact that this bill is 
sponsored by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Superfund 
Subcommittee and the Environment and Public Works Committee speaks very 
highly for the bipartisan efforts to achieve consensus on this issue. A 
factor critical to the success of this legislation, will be continued 
bipartisanship. We must continue to reach across the aisle; we must 
continue to find common ground; and we must continue to work 
cooperatively to move this legislation. I urge all Senators to support 
this legislation, which can--and should--be enacted this year.
  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. 2700

       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 
     ``Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration 
     Act of 2000''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

              TITLE I--BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING

Sec. 101. Brownfields revitalization funding.

             TITLE II--BROWNFIELDS LIABILITY CLARIFICATIONS

Sec. 201. Contiguous properties.
Sec. 202. Prospective purchasers and windfall liens.
Sec. 203. Innocent landowners.

                   TITLE III--STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS

Sec. 301. State response programs.
Sec. 302. Additions to National Priorities List.

              TITLE I--BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING

     SEC. 101. BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING.

       (a) Definition of Brownfield Site.--Section 101 of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(39) Brownfield site.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `brownfield site' means real 
     property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may 
     be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a 
     hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.
       ``(B) Exclusions.--The term `brownfield site' does not 
     include--
       ``(i) a facility that is the subject of a planned or 
     ongoing removal action under this title;
       ``(ii) a facility that is listed on the National Priorities 
     List or is proposed for listing;

[[Page S4836]]

       ``(iii) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral 
     administrative order, a court order, an administrative order 
     on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to 
     or entered into by the parties under this Act;
       ``(iv) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral 
     administrative order, a court order, an administrative order 
     on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to 
     or entered into by the parties, or a facility to which a 
     permit has been issued by the United States or an authorized 
     State under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
     seq.), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1321), the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et 
     seq.), or the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et 
     seq.);
       ``(v) a facility that--

       ``(I) is subject to corrective action under section 3004(u) 
     or 3008(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6924(u), 6928(h)); and
       ``(II) to which a corrective action permit or order has 
     been issued or modified to require the implementation of 
     corrective measures;

       ``(vi) a land disposal unit with respect to which--

       ``(I) a closure notification under subtitle C of the Solid 
     Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) has been 
     submitted; and
       ``(II) closure requirements have been specified in a 
     closure plan or permit;

       ``(vii) a facility that is subject to the jurisdiction, 
     custody, or control of a department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States, except for land held in 
     trust by the United States for an Indian tribe;
       ``(viii) a portion of a facility--

       ``(I) at which there has been a release of polychlorinated 
     biphenyls; and
       ``(II) that is subject to remediation under the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.); or

       ``(ix) a portion of a facility, for which portion, 
     assistance for response activity has been obtained under 
     subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et 
     seq.) from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 
     established under section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.
       ``(C) Site-by-site determinations.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (B) and on a site-by-site basis, the President 
     may authorize financial assistance under section 128 to an 
     eligible entity at a site included in clause (i), (iv), (v), 
     (vi), (viii), or (ix) of subparagraph (B) if the President 
     finds that financial assistance will protect human health and 
     the environment, and either promote economic development or 
     enable the creation of, preservation of, or addition to 
     parks, greenways, undeveloped property, other recreational 
     property, or other property used for nonprofit purposes.
       ``(D) Additional areas.--For the purposes of section 128, 
     the term `brownfield site' includes--
       ``(i) a site that is contaminated by a controlled substance 
     (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 802)); and
       ``(ii) mine-scarred land.''.
       (b) Brownfields Revitalization Funding.--Title I of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 128. BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING.

       ``(a) Definition of Eligible Entity.--In this section, the 
     term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(1) a general purpose unit of local government;
       ``(2) a land clearance authority or other quasi-
     governmental entity that operates under the supervision and 
     control of or as an agent of a general purpose unit of local 
     government;
       ``(3) a government entity created by a State legislature;
       ``(4) a regional council or group of general purpose units 
     of local government;
       ``(5) a redevelopment agency that is chartered or otherwise 
     sanctioned by a State;
       ``(6) a State; or
       ``(7) an Indian Tribe.
       ``(b) Brownfield Site Characterization and Assessment Grant 
     Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment of program.--The Administrator shall 
     establish a program to--
       ``(A) provide grants to inventory, characterize, assess, 
     and conduct planning related to brownfield sites under 
     paragraph (2); and
       ``(B) perform targeted site assessments at brownfield 
     sites.
       ``(2) Assistance for site characterization and 
     assessment.--
       ``(A) In general.--On approval of an application made by an 
     eligible entity, the Administrator may make a grant to the 
     eligible entity to be used for programs to inventory, 
     characterize, assess, and conduct planning related to 1 or 
     more brownfield sites.
       ``(B) Site characterization and assessment.--A site 
     characterization and assessment carried out with the use of a 
     grant under subparagraph (A) shall be performed in accordance 
     with section 101(35)(B).
       ``(c) Grants and Loans for Brownfield Remediation.--
       ``(1) Grants provided by the president.--Subject to 
     subsections (d) and (e), the President shall establish a 
     program to provide grants to--
       ``(A) eligible entities, to be used for capitalization of 
     revolving loan funds; and
       ``(B) eligible entities or nonprofit organizations, where 
     warranted, as determined by the President based on 
     considerations under paragraph (3), to be used directly for 
     remediation of 1 or more brownfield sites that is owned by 
     the entity or organization that receives the grant and in 
     amounts not to exceed $200,000 for each site to be 
     remediated.
       ``(2) Loans and grants provided by eligible entities.--An 
     eligible entity that receives a grant under paragraph (1)(A) 
     shall use the grant funds to provide assistance for the 
     remediation of brownfield sites in the form of--
       ``(A) 1 or more loans to an eligible entity, a site owner, 
     a site developer, or another person; or
       ``(B) 1 or more grants to an eligible entity or other 
     nonprofit organization, where warranted, as determined by the 
     eligible entity that is providing the assistance, based on 
     considerations under paragraph (3), to remediate sites owned 
     by the eligible entity or nonprofit organization that 
     receives the grant.
       ``(3) Considerations.--In determining whether a grant under 
     paragraph (1)(B) or (2)(B) is warranted, the President or the 
     eligible entity, as the case may be, shall take into 
     consideration--
       ``(A) the extent to which a grant will facilitate the 
     creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a 
     greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or 
     other property used for nonprofit purposes;
       ``(B) the extent to which a grant will meet the needs of a 
     community that has an inability to draw on other sources of 
     funding for environmental remediation and subsequent 
     redevelopment of the area in which a brownfield site is 
     located because of the small population or low income of the 
     community;
       ``(C) the extent to which a grant will facilitate the use 
     or reuse of existing infrastructure;
       ``(D) the benefit of promoting the long-term availability 
     of funds from a revolving loan fund for brownfield 
     remediation; and
       ``(E) such other factors as the Administrator considers 
     appropriate to consider for the purposes of this section.
       ``(4) Compliance with applicable laws.--An eligible entity 
     that provides assistance under paragraph (2) shall include in 
     all loan and grant agreements a requirement that the loan or 
     grant recipient shall comply with all laws applicable to the 
     cleanup for which grant funds will be used and ensure that 
     the cleanup protects human health and the environment.
       ``(5) Transition.--Revolving loan funds that have been 
     established before the date of enactment of this section may 
     be used in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(d) General Provisions.--
       ``(1) Maximum grant amount.--
       ``(A) Brownfield site characterization and assessment.--
       ``(i) In general.--A grant under subsection (b)--

       ``(I) may be awarded to an eligible entity on a community-
     wide or site-by-site basis; and
       ``(II) shall not exceed, for any individual brownfield site 
     covered by the grant, $200,000.

       ``(ii) Waiver.--The Administrator may waive the $200,000 
     limitation under clause (i)(II) to permit the brownfield site 
     to receive a grant of not to exceed $350,000, based on the 
     anticipated level of contamination, size, or status of 
     ownership of the site.
       ``(B) Brownfield remediation.--
       ``(i) Grant amount.--A grant under subsection (c)(1)(A) may 
     be awarded to an eligible entity on a community-wide or site-
     by-site basis, not to exceed $1,000,000 per eligible entity.
       ``(ii) Additional grant amount.--The Administrator may make 
     an additional grant to an eligible entity described in clause 
     (i) for any year after the year for which the initial grant 
     is made, taking into consideration--

       ``(I) the number of sites and number of communities that 
     are addressed by the revolving loan fund;
       ``(II) the demand for funding by eligible entities that 
     have not previously received a grant under this section;
       ``(III) the demonstrated ability of the eligible entity to 
     use the revolving loan fund to enhance remediation and 
     provide funds on a continuing basis; and
       ``(IV) any other factors that the Administrator considers 
     appropriate to carry out this section.

       ``(2) Prohibition.--
       ``(A) In general.--No part of a grant or loan under this 
     section may be used for the payment of--
       ``(i) a penalty or fine;
       ``(ii) a Federal cost-share requirement;
       ``(iii) an administrative cost;
       ``(iv) a response cost at a brownfield site for which the 
     recipient of the grant or loan is potentially liable under 
     section 107; or
       ``(v) a cost of compliance with any Federal law (including 
     a Federal law specified in section 101(39)(B)).
       ``(B) Exclusions.--For the purposes of subparagraph 
     (A)(iii), the term `administrative cost' does not include the 
     cost of--
       ``(i) investigation and identification of the extent of 
     contamination;
       ``(ii) design and performance of a response action; or
       ``(iii) monitoring of a natural resource.
       ``(3) Assistance for development of local government site 
     remediation programs.--A local government that receives a 
     grant under this section may use not to exceed 10 percent of 
     the grant funds to develop

[[Page S4837]]

     and implement a brownfields program that may include--
       ``(A) monitoring the health of populations exposed to 1 or 
     more hazardous substances from a brownfield site; and
       ``(B) monitoring and enforcement of any institutional 
     control used to prevent human exposure to any hazardous 
     substance from a brownfield site.
       ``(e) Grant Applications.--
       ``(1) Submission.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Application.--An eligible entity may submit to the 
     Administrator, through a regional office of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and in such form as the Administrator may 
     require, an application for a grant under this section for 1 
     or more brownfield sites (including information on the 
     criteria used by the Administrator to rank applications under 
     paragraph (3), to the extent that the information is 
     available).
       ``(ii) NCP requirements.--The Administrator may include in 
     any requirement for submission of an application under clause 
     (i) a requirement of the National Contingency Plan only to 
     the extent that the requirement is relevant and appropriate 
     to the program under this section.
       ``(B) Coordination.--The Administrator shall coordinate 
     with other Federal agencies to assist in making eligible 
     entities aware of other available Federal resources.
       ``(C) Guidance.--The Administrator shall publish guidance 
     to assist eligible entities in applying for grants under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Approval.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(A) complete an annual review of applications for grants 
     that are received from eligible entities under this section; 
     and
       ``(B) award grants under this section to eligible entities 
     that the Administrator determines have the highest rankings 
     under the ranking criteria established under paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Ranking criteria.--The Administrator shall establish 
     a system for ranking grant applications received under this 
     subsection that includes the following criteria:
       ``(A) The extent to which a grant will stimulate the 
     availability of other funds for environmental assessment or 
     remediation, and subsequent reuse, of an area in which 1 or 
     more brownfield sites are located.
       ``(B) The potential of the proposed project or the 
     development plan for an area in which 1 or more brownfield 
     sites are located to stimulate economic development of the 
     area on completion of the cleanup.
       ``(C) The extent to which a grant would address or 
     facilitate the identification and reduction of threats to 
     human health and the environment.
       ``(D) The extent to which a grant would facilitate the use 
     or reuse of existing infrastructure.
       ``(E) The extent to which a grant would facilitate the 
     creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a 
     greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or 
     other property used for nonprofit purposes.
       ``(F) The extent to which a grant would meet the needs of a 
     community that has an inability to draw on other sources of 
     funding for environmental remediation and subsequent 
     redevelopment of the area in which a brownfield site is 
     located because of the small population or low income of the 
     community.
       ``(G) The extent to which the applicant is eligible for 
     funding from other sources.
       ``(H) The extent to which a grant will further the fair 
     distribution of funding between urban and nonurban areas.
       ``(I) The extent to which the grant provides for 
     involvement of the local community in the process of making 
     decisions relating to cleanup and future use of a brownfield 
     site.
       ``(f) Implementation of Brownfields Programs.--
       ``(1) Establishment of program.--The Administrator may 
     provide, or fund eligible entities to provide, training, 
     research, and technical assistance to individuals and 
     organizations, as appropriate, to facilitate the inventory of 
     brownfield sites, site assessments, remediation of brownfield 
     sites, community involvement, or site preparation.
       ``(2) Funding restrictions.--The total Federal funds to be 
     expended by the Administrator under this subsection shall not 
     exceed 15 percent of the total amount appropriated to carry 
     out this section in any fiscal year.
       ``(g) Audits.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Inspector General of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct such reviews or 
     audits of grants and loans under this section as the 
     Inspector General considers necessary to carry out this 
     section.
       ``(2) Procedure.--An audit under this paragraph shall be 
     conducted in accordance with the auditing procedures of the 
     General Accounting Office, including chapter 75 of title 31, 
     United States Code.
       ``(3) Violations.--If the Administrator determines that a 
     person that receives a grant or loan under this section has 
     violated or is in violation of a condition of the grant, 
     loan, or applicable Federal law, the Administrator may--
       ``(A) terminate the grant or loan;
       ``(B) require the person to repay any funds received; and
       ``(C) seek any other legal remedies available to the 
     Administrator.
       ``(h) Leveraging.--An eligible entity that receives a grant 
     under this section may use the grant funds for a portion of a 
     project at a brownfield site for which funding is received 
     from other sources if the grant funds are used only for the 
     purposes described in subsection (b) or (c).
       ``(i) Agreements.--Each grant or loan made under this 
     section shall be subject to an agreement that--
       ``(1) requires the recipient to comply with all applicable 
     Federal and State laws;
       ``(2) requires that the recipient use the grant or loan 
     exclusively for purposes specified in subsection (b) or (c), 
     as applicable;
       ``(3) in the case of an application by an eligible entity 
     under subsection (c)(1), requires the eligible entity to pay 
     a matching share (which may be in the form of a contribution 
     of labor, material, or services) of at least 20 percent, from 
     non-Federal sources of funding, unless the Administrator 
     determines that the matching share would place an undue 
     hardship on the eligible entity; and
       ``(4) contains such other terms and conditions as the 
     Administrator determines to be necessary to carry out this 
     section.
       ``(j) Facility Other Than Brownfield Site.--The fact that a 
     facility may not be a brownfield site within the meaning of 
     section 101(39)(A) has no effect on the eligibility of the 
     facility for assistance under any other provision of Federal 
     law.
       ``(k) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2005.''.

             TITLE II--BROWNFIELDS LIABILITY CLARIFICATIONS

     SEC. 201. CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES.

       Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(o) Contiguous Properties.--
       ``(1) Not considered to be an owner or operator.--
       ``(A) In general.--A person that owns real property that is 
     contiguous to or otherwise similarly situated with respect 
     to, and that is or may be contaminated by a release or 
     threatened release of a hazardous substance from, real 
     property that is not owned by that person shall not be 
     considered to be an owner or operator of a vessel or facility 
     under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) solely by reason 
     of the contamination if--
       ``(i) the person did not cause, contribute, or consent to 
     the release or threatened release;
       ``(ii) the person is not--

       ``(I) potentially liable, or affiliated with any other 
     person that is potentially liable, for response costs at a 
     facility through any direct or indirect familial relationship 
     or any contractual, corporate, or financial relationship 
     (other than a contractual, corporate, or financial 
     relationship that is created by a contract for the sale of 
     goods or services); or
       ``(II) the result of a reorganization of a business entity 
     that was potentially liable;

       ``(iii) the person takes reasonable steps to--

       ``(I) stop any continuing release;
       ``(II) prevent any threatened future release; and
       ``(III) prevent or limit human, environmental, or natural 
     resource exposure to any hazardous substance released on or 
     from property owned by that person;

       ``(iv) the person provides full cooperation, assistance, 
     and access to persons that are authorized to conduct response 
     actions or natural resource restoration at the vessel or 
     facility from which there has been a release or threatened 
     release (including the cooperation and access necessary for 
     the installation, integrity, operation, and maintenance of 
     any complete or partial response action at the vessel or 
     facility);
       ``(v) the person--

       ``(I) is in compliance with any land use restrictions 
     established or relied on in connection with the response 
     action at a facility; and
       ``(II) does not impede the effectiveness or integrity of 
     any institutional control employed in connection with a 
     response action;

       ``(vi) the person is in compliance with any request for 
     information or administrative subpoena issued by the 
     President under this Act;
       ``(vii) the person provides all legally required notices 
     with respect to the discovery or release of any hazardous 
     substances at the facility; and
       ``(viii) at the time at which the person acquired the 
     property, the person--

       ``(I) conducted all appropriate inquiry within the meaning 
     of section 101(35)(B) with respect to the property; and
       ``(II) did not know or have reason to know that the 
     property was or could be contaminated by a release or 
     threatened release of 1 or more hazardous substances from 
     other real property not owned or operated by the person.

       ``(B) Demonstration.--To qualify as a person described in 
     subparagraph (A), a person must establish by a preponderance 
     of the evidence that the conditions in clauses (i) through 
     (viii) of subparagraph (A) have been met.
       ``(C) Bona fide prospective purchaser.--Any person that 
     does not qualify as a person described in this paragraph 
     because the person had knowledge specified in subparagraph 
     (A)(viii) at the time of acquisition of the real property may 
     qualify as a bona fide prospective purchaser under section 
     101(40) if the person is otherwise described in that section.
       ``(D) Ground water.--If a hazardous substance from 1 or 
     more sources that are not on the property of a person enters 
     ground water beneath the property of the person solely as a 
     result of subsurface migration in

[[Page S4838]]

     an aquifer, subparagraph (A)(iii) shall not require the 
     person to conduct ground water investigations or to install 
     ground water remediation systems, except in accordance with 
     the policy of the Environmental Protection Agency concerning 
     owners of property containing contaminated aquifers, dated 
     May 24, 1995.
       ``(2) Effect of law.--With respect to a person described in 
     this subsection, nothing in this subsection--
       ``(A) limits any defense to liability that may be available 
     to the person under any other provision of law; or
       ``(B) imposes liability on the person that is not otherwise 
     imposed by subsection (a).
       ``(3) Assurances.--The Administrator may--
       ``(A) issue an assurance that no enforcement action under 
     this Act will be initiated against a person described in 
     paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) grant a person described in paragraph (1) protection 
     against a cost recovery or contribution action under section 
     113(f).''.

     SEC. 202. PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS AND WINDFALL LIENS.

       (a) Definition of Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser.--Section 
     101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) (as 
     amended by section 101(a)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(40) Bona fide prospective purchaser.--The term `bona 
     fide prospective purchaser' means a person (or a tenant of a 
     person) that acquires ownership of a facility after the date 
     of enactment of this paragraph and that establishes each of 
     the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
       ``(A) Disposal prior to acquisition.--All disposal of 
     hazardous substances at the facility occurred before the 
     person acquired the facility.
       ``(B) Inquiries.--
       ``(i) In general.--The person made all appropriate 
     inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the 
     facility in accordance with generally accepted good 
     commercial and customary standards and practices in 
     accordance with clauses (ii) and (iii).
       ``(ii) Standards and practices.--The standards and 
     practices referred to in clauses (ii) and (iv) of paragraph 
     (35)(B) shall be considered to satisfy the requirements of 
     this subparagraph.
       ``(iii) Residential use.--In the case of property in 
     residential or other similar use at the time of purchase by a 
     nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, a facility 
     inspection and title search that reveal no basis for further 
     investigation shall be considered to satisfy the requirements 
     of this subparagraph.
       ``(C) Notices.--The person provides all legally required 
     notices with respect to the discovery or release of any 
     hazardous substances at the facility.
       ``(D) Care.--The person exercises appropriate care with 
     respect to hazardous substances found at the facility by 
     taking reasonable steps to--
       ``(i) stop any continuing release;
       ``(ii) prevent any threatened future release; and
       ``(iii) prevent or limit human, environmental, or natural 
     resource exposure to any previously released hazardous 
     substance.
       ``(E) Cooperation, assistance, and access.--The person 
     provides full cooperation, assistance, and access to persons 
     that are authorized to conduct response actions at a vessel 
     or facility (including the cooperation and access necessary 
     for the installation, integrity, operation, and maintenance 
     of any complete or partial response actions at the vessel or 
     facility).
       ``(F) Institutional control.--The person--
       ``(i) is in compliance with any land use restrictions 
     established or relied on in connection with the response 
     action at a vessel or facility; and
       ``(ii) does not impede the effectiveness or integrity of 
     any institutional control employed at the vessel or facility 
     in connection with a response action.
       ``(G) Requests; subpoenas.--The person complies with any 
     request for information or administrative subpoena issued by 
     the President under this Act.
       ``(H) No affiliation.--The person is not--
       ``(i) potentially liable, or affiliated with any other 
     person that is potentially liable, for response costs at a 
     facility through--

       ``(I) any direct or indirect familial relationship; or
       ``(II) any contractual, corporate, or financial 
     relationship (other than a contractual, corporate, or 
     financial relationship that is created by the instruments by 
     which title to the facility is conveyed or financed or by a 
     contract for the sale of goods or services); or

       ``(ii) the result of a reorganization of a business entity 
     that was potentially liable.''.
       (b) Prospective Purchaser and Windfall Lien.--Section 107 
     of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
     and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) (as amended by 
     section 201) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Prospective Purchaser and Windfall Lien.--
       ``(1) Limitation on liability.--Notwithstanding subsection 
     (a)(1), a bona fide prospective purchaser whose potential 
     liability for a release or threatened release is based solely 
     on the purchaser's being considered to be an owner or 
     operator of a facility shall not be liable as long as the 
     bona fide prospective purchaser does not impede the 
     performance of a response action or natural resource 
     restoration.
       ``(2) Lien.--If there are unrecovered response costs 
     incurred by the United States at a facility for which an 
     owner of the facility is not liable by reason of paragraph 
     (1), and if each of the conditions described in paragraph (3) 
     is met, the United States shall have a lien on the facility, 
     or may by agreement with the party obtain from an appropriate 
     party a lien on any other property or other assurance of 
     payment satisfactory to the Administrator, for the 
     unrecovered response costs.
       ``(3) Conditions.--The conditions referred to in paragraph 
     (2) are the following:
       ``(A) Response action.--A response action for which there 
     are unrecovered costs of the United States is carried out at 
     the facility.
       ``(B) Fair market value.--The response action increases the 
     fair market value of the facility above the fair market value 
     of the facility that existed before the response action was 
     initiated.
       ``(4) Amount; duration.--A lien under paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) shall be in an amount not to exceed the increase in 
     fair market value of the property attributable to the 
     response action at the time of a sale or other disposition of 
     the property;
       ``(B) shall arise at the time at which costs are first 
     incurred by the United States with respect to a response 
     action at the facility;
       ``(C) shall be subject to the requirements of subsection 
     (l)(3); and
       ``(D) shall continue until the earlier of--
       ``(i) satisfaction of the lien by sale or other means; or
       ``(ii) notwithstanding any statute of limitations under 
     section 113, recovery of all response costs incurred at the 
     facility.''.

     SEC. 203. INNOCENT LANDOWNERS.

       Section 101(35) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601(35)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in the first sentence, in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by striking ``deeds or'' and inserting ``deeds, 
     easements, leases, or''; and
       (B) in the second sentence--
       (i) by striking ``he'' and inserting ``the defendant''; and
       (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, 
     provides full cooperation, assistance, and facility access to 
     the persons that are authorized to conduct response actions 
     at the facility (including the cooperation and access 
     necessary for the installation, integrity, operation, and 
     maintenance of any complete or partial response action at the 
     facility), and is in compliance with any land use 
     restrictions established or relied on in connection with the 
     response action at a facility, and does not impede the 
     effectiveness or integrity of any institutional control 
     employed at the facility in connection with a response 
     action.''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Reason to know.--
       ``(i) All appropriate inquiries.--To establish that the 
     defendant had no reason to know of the matter described in 
     subparagraph (A)(i), the defendant must demonstrate to a 
     court that--

       ``(I) on or before the date on which the defendant acquired 
     the facility, the defendant carried out all appropriate 
     inquiries, as provided in clauses (ii) and (iv), into the 
     previous ownership and uses of the facility in accordance 
     with generally accepted good commercial and customary 
     standards and practices; and
       ``(II) the defendant took reasonable steps to--

       ``(aa) stop any continuing release;
       ``(bb) prevent any threatened future release; and
       ``(cc) prevent or limit any human, environmental, or 
     natural resource exposure to any previously released 
     hazardous substance.
       ``(ii) Standards and practices.--Not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of the Brownfields Revitalization 
     and Environmental Restoration Act of 2000, the Administrator 
     shall by regulation establish standards and practices for the 
     purpose of satisfying the requirement to carry out all 
     appropriate inquiries under clause (i).
       ``(iii) Criteria.--In promulgating regulations that 
     establish the standards and practices referred to in clause 
     (ii), the Administrator shall include each of the following:

       ``(I) The results of an inquiry by an environmental 
     professional.
       ``(II) Interviews with past and present owners, operators, 
     and occupants of the facility for the purpose of gathering 
     information regarding the potential for contamination at the 
     facility.
       ``(III) Reviews of historical sources, such as chain of 
     title documents, aerial photographs, building department 
     records, and land use records, to determine previous uses and 
     occupancies of the real property since the property was first 
     developed.
       ``(IV) Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens 
     against the facility that are filed under Federal, State, or 
     local law.
       ``(V) Reviews of Federal, State, and local government 
     records, waste disposal records, underground storage tank 
     records, and hazardous waste handling, generation, treatment, 
     disposal, and spill records, concerning contamination at or 
     near the facility.
       ``(VI) Visual inspections of the facility and of adjoining 
     properties.
       ``(VII) Specialized knowledge or experience on the part of 
     the defendant.

[[Page S4839]]

       ``(VIII) The relationship of the purchase price to the 
     value of the property, if the property was not contaminated.
       ``(IX) Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable 
     information about the property.
       ``(X) The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely 
     presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to 
     detect the contamination by appropriate investigation.

       ``(iv) Interim standards and practices.--

       ``(I) Property purchased before May 31, 1997.--With respect 
     to property purchased before May 31, 1997, in making a 
     determination with respect to a defendant described of clause 
     (i), a court shall take into account--

       ``(aa) any specialized knowledge or experience on the part 
     of the defendant;
       ``(bb) the relationship of the purchase price to the value 
     of the property, if the property was not contaminated;
       ``(cc) commonly known or reasonably ascertainable 
     information about the property;
       ``(dd) the obviousness of the presence or likely presence 
     of contamination at the property; and
       ``(ee) the ability of the defendant to detect the 
     contamination by appropriate inspection.

       ``(II) Property purchased on or after May 31, 1997.--With 
     respect to property purchased on or after May 31, 1997, and 
     until the Administrator promulgates the regulations described 
     in clause (ii), the procedures of the American Society for 
     Testing and Materials, including the document known as 
     `Standard E1527-97', entitled `Standard Practice for 
     Environmental Site Assessment: Phase 1 Environmental Site 
     Assessment Process', shall satisfy the requirements in clause 
     (i).

       ``(v) Site inspection and title search.--In the case of 
     property for residential use or other similar use purchased 
     by a nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, a facility 
     inspection and title search that reveal no basis for further 
     investigation shall be considered to satisfy the requirements 
     of this subparagraph.''.

                   TITLE III--STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS

     SEC. 301. STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 101 of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) (as amended by section 202) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(41) Eligible response site.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible response site' means 
     a site that meets the definition of a brownfield site in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (39), as modified by 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this paragraph.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `eligible response site' 
     includes--
       ``(i) notwithstanding paragraph (39)(B)(ix), a portion of a 
     facility, for which portion assistance for response activity 
     has been obtained under subtitle I of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.) from the Leaking 
     Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund established under section 
     9508 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(ii) a site for which, notwithstanding the exclusions 
     provided in subparagraph (C) or paragraph (39)(B), the 
     President determines, on a site-by-site basis and after 
     consultation with the State, that limitations on enforcement 
     under section 129 at sites specified in clause (iv), (v), 
     (vi) or (viii) of paragraph (39)(B) would be appropriate and 
     will--

       ``(I) protect human health and the environment; and
       ``(II) promote economic development or facilitate the 
     creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a 
     greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or 
     other property used for nonprofit purposes.

       ``(C) Exclusions.--The term `eligible response site' does 
     not include--
       ``(i) a facility for which the President--

       ``(I) conducts or has conducted a remedial site 
     investigation; and
       ``(II) after consultation with the State, determines or has 
     determined that the site qualifies for listing on the 
     National Priorities List;

     unless the President has made a determination that no further 
     Federal action will be taken; or
       ``(ii) facilities that the President determines warrant 
     particular consideration as identified by regulation, such as 
     sites posing a threat to a sole-source drinking water aquifer 
     or a sensitive ecosystem.''.
       (b) State Response Programs.--Title I of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) (as amended by section 101(b)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 129. STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Assistance to States.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) States.--The Administrator may award a grant to a 
     State or Indian tribe that--
       ``(i) has a response program that includes each of the 
     elements, or is taking reasonable steps to include each of 
     the elements, listed in paragraph (2); or
       ``(ii) is a party to a memorandum of agreement with the 
     Administrator for voluntary response programs.
       ``(B) Use of grants by states.--
       ``(i) In general.--A State or Indian tribe may use a grant 
     under this subsection to establish or enhance the response 
     program of the State or Indian tribe.
       ``(ii) Additional uses.--In addition to the uses under 
     clause (i), a State or Indian tribe may use a grant under 
     this subsection to--

       ``(I) capitalize a revolving loan fund for brownfield 
     remediation under section 128(c); or
       ``(II) develop a risk sharing pool, an indemnity pool, or 
     insurance mechanism to provide financing for response actions 
     under a State response program.

       ``(2) Elements.--The elements of a State or Indian tribe 
     response program referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) are the 
     following:
       ``(A) Timely survey and inventory of brownfield sites in 
     the State.
       ``(B) Oversight and enforcement authorities or other 
     mechanisms, and resources, that are adequate to ensure that--
       ``(i) a response action will--

       ``(I) protect human health and the environment; and
       ``(II) be conducted in accordance with applicable Federal 
     and State law; and

       ``(ii) if the person conducting the response action fails 
     to complete the necessary response activities, including 
     operation and maintenance or long-term monitoring activities, 
     the necessary response activities are completed.
       ``(C) Mechanisms and resources to provide meaningful 
     opportunities for public participation, including--
       ``(i) public access to documents that the State, Indian 
     tribe, or party conducting the cleanup is relying on or 
     developing in making cleanup decisions or conducting site 
     activities; and
       ``(ii) prior notice and opportunity for comment on proposed 
     cleanup plans and site activities.
       ``(D) Mechanisms for approval of a cleanup plan, and a 
     requirement for verification by and certification or similar 
     documentation from the State, an Indian tribe, or a licensed 
     site professional to the person conducting a response action 
     indicating that the response is complete.
       ``(3) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this subsection $50,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2001 through 2005.
       ``(b) Enforcement in Cases of a Release Subject to State 
     Program.--
       ``(1) Enforcement.--
       ``(A) In general.-- Except as provided in subparagraph (B) 
     and subject to subparagraph (C), in the case of an eligible 
     response site at which--
       ``(i) there is a release or threatened release of a 
     hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant; and
       ``(ii) a person is conducting or has completed a response 
     action regarding the specific release that is addressed by 
     the response action that is in compliance with the State 
     program that specifically governs response actions for the 
     protection of public health and the environment;
     the President may not use authority under this Act to take an 
     administrative or judicial enforcement action under section 
     106(a) or to take a judicial enforcement action to recover 
     response costs under section 107(a) against the person 
     regarding the specific release that is addressed by the 
     response action.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--The President may bring an enforcement 
     action under this Act during or after completion of a 
     response action described in subparagraph (A) with respect to 
     a release or threatened release at an eligible response site 
     described in that subparagraph if--
       ``(i) the State requests that the President provide 
     assistance in the performance of a response action;
       ``(ii) the Administrator determines that contamination has 
     migrated or will migrate across a State line, resulting in 
     the need for further response action to protect human health 
     or the environment, or the President determines that 
     contamination has migrated or is likely to migrate onto 
     property subject to the jurisdiction, custody, or control of 
     a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States 
     and may impact the authorized purposes of the Federal 
     property;
       ``(iii) after taking into consideration the response 
     activities already taken, the Administrator determines that--

       ``(I) a release or threatened release may present an 
     imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or 
     welfare or the environment; and
       ``(II) additional response actions are likely to be 
     necessary to address, prevent, limit, or mitigate the release 
     or threatened release; or

       ``(iv) the Administrator determines that information, that 
     on the earlier of the date on which cleanup was approved or 
     completed, was not known by the State, as recorded in 
     documents prepared or relied on in selecting or conducting 
     the cleanup, has been discovered regarding the contamination 
     or conditions at a facility such that the contamination or 
     conditions at the facility present a threat requiring further 
     remediation to protect public health or welfare or the 
     environment.
       ``(C) Public record.--The limitations on the authority of 
     the President under subparagraph (A) apply only at sites in 
     States that maintain, update not less than annually, and make 
     available to the public a record of sites, by name and 
     location, at which response actions have been completed in 
     the previous year and are planned to be addressed under the 
     State program that specifically governs response actions for 
     the protection of public health and the environment in the 
     upcoming year. The public record shall identify whether or 
     not the site, on completion of the response action, will be 
     suitable for unrestricted use and, if not, shall identify the 
     institutional controls relied on in the remedy. Each State 
     and tribe

[[Page S4840]]

     receiving financial assistance under subsection (a) shall 
     maintain and make available to the public a record of sites 
     as provided in this paragraph.
       ``(D) EPA notification.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of an eligible response site 
     at which there is a release or threatened release of a 
     hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant and for which 
     the Administrator intends to carry out an action that may be 
     barred under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall--

       ``(I) notify the State of the action the Administrator 
     intends to take; and
       ``(II)(aa) wait 48 hours for a reply from the State under 
     clause (ii); or
       ``(bb) if the State fails to reply to the notification or 
     if the Administrator makes a determination under clause 
     (iii), take immediate action under that clause.

       ``(ii) State reply.--Not later than 48 hours after a State 
     receives notice from the Administrator under clause (i), the 
     State shall notify the Administrator if--

       ``(I) the release at the eligible response site is or has 
     been subject to a cleanup conducted under a State program; 
     and
       ``(II) the State is planning to abate the release or 
     threatened release, any actions that are planned.

       ``(iii) Immediate federal action.--The Administrator may 
     take action immediately after giving notification under 
     clause (i) without waiting for a State reply under clause 
     (ii) if the Administrator determines that 1 or more 
     exceptions under subparagraph (B) are met.
       ``(E) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of initiation of any enforcement action by the President 
     under clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) of subparagraph (B), the 
     President shall submit to Congress a report describing the 
     basis for the enforcement action, including specific 
     references to the facts demonstrating that enforcement action 
     is permitted under subparagraph (B).
       ``(2) Savings provision.--
       ``(A) Costs incurred prior to limitations.--Nothing in 
     paragraph (1) precludes the President from seeking to recover 
     costs incurred prior to the date of enactment of this section 
     or during a period in which the limitations of paragraph 
     (1)(A) were not applicable.
       ``(B) Effect on agreements between states and epa.--Nothing 
     in paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) modifies or otherwise affects a memorandum of 
     agreement, memorandum of understanding, or any similar 
     agreement relating to this Act between a State agency or an 
     Indian tribe and the Administrator that is in effect on or 
     before the date of enactment of this section (which agreement 
     shall remain in effect, subject to the terms of the 
     agreement); or
       ``(ii) limits the discretionary authority of the President 
     to enter into or modify an agreement with a State, an Indian 
     tribe, or any other person relating to the implementation by 
     the President of statutory authorities.
       ``(3) Effective date.--This subsection applies only to 
     response actions conducted after June 8, 2000.
       ``(c) Effect on Federal Laws.--Nothing in this section 
     affects any liability or response authority under any Federal 
     law, including--
       ``(1) this Act, except as provided in subsection (b);
       ``(2) the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
     seq.);
       ``(3) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1251 et seq.);
       ``(4) the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et 
     seq.); and
       ``(5) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et 
     seq.).''.

     SEC. 302. ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST.

       Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) NPL Deferral.--
       ``(1) Deferral to state voluntary cleanups.--At the request 
     of a State and subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the 
     President generally shall defer final listing of an eligible 
     response site on the National Priorities List if the 
     President determines that--
       ``(A) the State, or another party under an agreement with 
     or order from the State, is conducting a response action at 
     the eligible response site--
       ``(i) in compliance with a State program that specifically 
     governs response actions for the protection of public health 
     and the environment; and
       ``(ii) that will provide long-term protection of human 
     health and the environment; or
       ``(B) the State is actively pursuing an agreement to 
     perform a response action described in subparagraph (A) at 
     the site with a person that the State has reason to believe 
     is capable of conducting a response action that meets the 
     requirements of subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Progress toward cleanup.--If, after the last day of 
     the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the 
     President proposes to list an eligible response site on the 
     National Priorities List, the President determines that the 
     State or other party is not making reasonable progress toward 
     completing a response action at the eligible response site, 
     the President may list the eligible response site on the 
     National Priorities List.
       ``(3) Cleanup agreements.--With respect to an eligible 
     response site under paragraph (1)(B), if, after the last day 
     of the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the 
     President proposes to list the eligible response site on the 
     National Priorities List, an agreement described in paragraph 
     (1)(B) has not been reached, the President may defer the 
     listing of the eligible response site on the National 
     Priorities List for an additional period of not to exceed 180 
     days if the President determines deferring the listing would 
     be appropriate based on--
       ``(A) the complexity of the site;
       ``(B) substantial progress made in negotiations; and
       ``(C) other appropriate factors, as determined by the 
     President.
       ``(4) Exceptions.--The President may decline to defer, or 
     elect to discontinue a deferral of, a listing of an eligible 
     response site on the National Priorities List if the 
     President determines that--
       ``(A) deferral would not be appropriate because the State, 
     as an owner or operator or a significant contributor of 
     hazardous substances to the facility, is a potentially 
     responsible party;
       ``(B) the criteria under the National Contingency Plan for 
     issuance of a health advisory have been met; or
       ``(C) the conditions in paragraphs (1) through (3), as 
     applicable, are no longer being met.''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I'm very pleased to announce that, 
after months of very hard work, we have bipartisan legislation which 
will clean up and redevelop the abandoned industrial sites known as 
Brownfields--S. 2700, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 
Restoration Act of 2000.
  I first introduced Brownfields legislation in the Senate in 1993, in 
the hopes of both protecting public health, and addressing the problems 
of blighted areas. Since that time, it has become clear that there are 
even more reasons to address Brownfields than we originally thought. In 
fact, there are few environmental issues which cut across so many 
problems and offer so many solutions.
  Mr. President, Brownfields threaten the health of our citizens--and 
the economic health of communities across the country, by leading to 
abandoned inner cities, increased crime, loss of jobs and declining tax 
revenues. Brownfields also lead to urban sprawl, loss of farmland, 
increased traffic and air pollution and loss of historic districts in 
older urban centers.
  But once they're cleaned up and made useful again, they also 
represent tremendous potential in new jobs and a cleaner environment. 
Now, finally, we have a bipartisan plan to achieve those goals.
  The legislation we're introducing today provides federal money to 
investigate and clean up Brownfields sites. State and local governments 
would use this money to determine which sites pose environmental 
problems, to decide which redevelopment options hold the greatest 
promise, and most important, to get these sites cleaned up.
  Second, the legislation promises important private investments in the 
cleanup effort--by providing liability protection for people interested 
in buying and cleaning up these sites and for people who bought a 
Brownfields site without knowing it was contaminated. It also removes 
potential liability for parties who own property which becomes 
contaminated through no fault of their own, from hazardous substances 
from an adjacent site. These liability limitations and clarifications 
will help innocent parties and provide incentives to get these 
properties cleaned up and back into use.
  Third, this bill does several new and positive things for communities 
and for the environment. For the first time, it creates a public record 
of Brownfield sites handled under state programs, because the public 
has a right to know what's happening at the sites near their homes. And 
it is the first Brownfields bill to provide funding not just to assist 
in redevelopment projects, but also to provide assistance to state and 
local governments to create and preserve open space, parklands and 
other recreational areas in former Brownfields sites.
  Finally, the bill gives states incentives and funding to develop 
state programs to clean up their Brownfield sites quickly and safely. 
It has provisions to encourage cooperation and coordination between the 
federal and state governments, both of whom play an active role in 
cleaning up these sites and protecting the citizens. The bill strikes a 
delicate balance. It provides deference to state cleanup programs but 
still ensures that the federal superfund program will be able to come 
in

[[Page S4841]]

and address problems when a site poses a serious problem.
  The Brownfields cleanup and redevelopment strategy in this 
legislation is comprehensive. It's fiscally responsible. And it will 
improve the quality of life for people throughout the country. It 
promises thousands of new jobs and millions in new tax revenue. It 
promises increased momentum for smart growth, which means cleaner 
air and less congested roads.

  It promises a new focus on revitalizing downtown areas, which will 
reduce urban sprawl, lower rates and protect parkland and open space. I 
come from the most densely populated state in this country, and I 
understand the importance of protecting open space.
  Mr. President, the nation's mayors estimate that Brownfields cost 
between $200 million and $500 million a year in lost tax revenues. 
Returning these sites to productive use could create some 236,000 new 
jobs.
  Just look at the progress we've made even over the last few years. 
Grants from the EPA to aid in cleaning up Brownfields sites have helped 
generate more than 5,800 jobs and about $1.8 billion in revenues. In 
New Jersey alone, we've rescued more than 1,000 Brownfields sites, 
replacing polluted lagoons with office centers and covering abandoned 
rail yards with condominium complexes.
  These successes benefit everyone--both environmentally and 
economically. Which is why this legislation has strong support from 
both Democrats and Republicans.
  Mr. President, in the 1960s, this country turned its attention away 
from downtown areas and started focusing on the suburbs. We see now 
what that got us: clogged highways, overcrowded airports, and increased 
pollution.
  It's time to turn that trend around. And that's exactly what this 
legislation will do. I also want to thank my three colleagues for their 
determination and hard work in hammering out this compromise. Senator 
Smith, our new Chairman, has really reached out to all members of the 
Committee to try to craft good environmental legislation.
  Senator Baucus, the Democratic leader on our Committee, has been a 
stalwart advocate for a good Superfund program and a compromise 
Brownfields bill. We have fought many battles together over the years. 
Finally, Senator Chafee has shown great courage and energy, bringing us 
together to do what was once unthinkable, a Superfund related bill that 
has bipartisan support. I look forward to working with all of them to 
ensure that this bill is signed into law. Thank you. Following is a 
summary of the bill.

 Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2000 
                       (S. 2700)--Key Provisions

       Provides critically needed funds to assess and clean up 
     abandoned and underutilized brownfield sites, which will 
     create jobs, increase tax revenues, preserve and create open 
     space and parks;
       Provides legal protections for innocent parties, such as 
     contiguous property owners, prospective purchasers, and 
     innocent landowners;
       Provides for funding and enhancement of state cleanup 
     programs, including limits where appropriate on enforcement 
     by the federal government at sites cleaned up under a State 
     response program. Provides a balance of certainty for 
     prospective purchasers, developers and others while ensuring 
     protection of the public health.
       Creates a public record of brownfield sites and enhances 
     community involvement in site cleanup and reuse.
       Provides for deferral of listing sites on the National 
     Priorities List if the state is taking action at the site.


               TITLE I: BROWNFIELD REVITALIZATION FUNDING

       Authorizes $150 million per year, for fiscal years 2001-
     2005, for grants to local governments, States and Indian 
     tribes to inventory, assess and cleanup contaminated 
     brownfield sites, either through establishing a Revolving 
     Loan Fund or, in some circumstances, by giving a grant. 
     Provides criteria to be used in awarding these funds, 
     including the extent to which the money will protect human 
     health, spur redevelopment and create jobs, preserve open 
     space and parks, and represent a fair distribution of money 
     between urban and rural areas.


             TITLE II: BROWNFIELD LIABILITY CLARIFICATIONS

       Contiguous Property Owners--Generally provides Superfund 
     liability relief for innocent persons who own property that 
     is contaminated solely due to a release from another 
     property, so long as the person did not cause or contribute 
     to the release, and provide cooperation and access for the 
     cleanup.
       Prospective Purchases--Generally provides Superfund 
     liability relief for innocent future buyers of brownfields 
     who are responsible for contamination and do not impede the 
     cleanup of the site, make all appropriate inquiry prior to 
     purchase, exercise appropriate care with respect to hazardous 
     substances, and provide cooperation and access to persons 
     cleaning up the site. The bill also provides for ``windfall 
     liens'' at sites where the government pays for the cleanup, 
     and the fair market value was enhanced by that effort.
       Innocent Landowners--Clarifies relief from Superfund 
     liability for landowners who had no reason to know of 
     contamination at the time of purchase, despite having made 
     all appropriate inquiry into prior ownership and use of the 
     facility. Provides certainty to parties by clarifying what 
     needs to be done to satisfy the ``appropriate inquiry'' 
     requirement in the current statute.


                   TITLE III: STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS

       Authorizes $50 million per year in fiscal years 2001-2005 
     for grants to states and Indian tribes to establish and 
     enhance their cleanup programs, when the programs meet are 
     making progress toward meeting general criteria, such as 
     protection of human health and providing public involvement.
       Provides deference to state programs and provides 
     additional ``certainty'' to persons who conduct cleanups 
     under state programs by placing restrictions on the authority 
     of the Administrator to take an enforcement action under the 
     federal Superfield law, while preserving the President's 
     ability to address serious problems.
       Provides for states to keep a public record of sites, in 
     the state program to be eligible for the bar on federal 
     enforcement. This record will provide the public with 
     critical information about the sites in their neighborhoods.
       Provides a deferral for listing sites on the federal 
     Superfund list if the site is being adequately handled by the 
     state program.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Today, the chairman of the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, ranking minority member of the committee, 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Superfund, and ranking minority member 
of the subcommittee, have come together to introduce a bill that 
protects the environment, encourages community involvement, promotes 
economic redevelopment, encourages the preservation of green spaces, 
and sets the stage for future efforts of comprehensive Superfund 
reform.
  As a nation, our industrial heritage has left us with numerous 
contaminated abandoned or underutilized ``brownfield'' sites. Although 
the level of contamination at many of these sites is relatively low, 
and the potential value of the property may be quite high, developers 
often shy away from developing these sites. One reason for this is 
uncertainty regarding the extent of contamination, the extent of 
potential liability, or the potential costs of cleanup.
  With the introduction of the Brownfield Revitalization and 
Environmental Restoration Act of 2000, we focus on the uncertainty 
facing developers, property owners, and communities as to the status of 
low-risk contaminated sites.
  At the beginning of this Congress, Administrator Browner and 
Assistant Administrator of Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 
Response, Tim Fields, testified that EPA was interested in pursuing 
legislative reform only in some narrow property owner areas and in 
brownfields. We have worked to address their suggestions and hope that 
in the future they can work with us to address a broader comprehensive 
Superfund effort.
  Concerns exist for some Committee members that taking brownfields out 
of a comprehensive Superfund reform package will jeopardize future 
Superfund reform. Although I agree with my colleagues that 
comprehensive reform is needed, I feel that we can move forward with 
brownfield legislation without compromising comprehensive reform. 
450,000 brownfield sites exist in the United States. These sites are 
low risk sites and are not the traditional Superfund sites that would 
be affected by comprehensive Superfund reform. If States and citizens 
are discouraged from cleaning up these sites, continuing the barriers 
to redevelopment, these sites may someday become Superfund sites.
  As brownfield sites are outside of the scope of Superfund, I believe 
that liability carve-outs are outside of the scope of any brownfields 
legislation. As I have in the past, I continue to oppose narrow carve-
outs. Carveouts weaken attempts at overhauling the remedy selection and 
liability allocation provisions in the current Superfund statute and, 
frankly, make a bad system worse. This brownfield legislation does not 
affect the allocation of liability at Superfund sites, instead, it 
provides

[[Page S4842]]

needed resources to address sites, provides certainty to those who 
voluntarily cleanup, and prevents brownfields from being included in 
the Superfund web. Brownfield legislation presents a win-win for all 
involved and should jumpstart action on substantive Superfund reform in 
the next Congress.
  This is a new era of environmental and infrastructure legislation. 
Since we have been paying down the debt, we are now able to return 
money to local communities to help them solve environmental problems 
and are encouraging partnerships are between federal entities, States, 
and local communities. It is an exciting time to be working and 
investing in our environment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Chafee, 
Lautenberg, and Smith in introducing the Brownfields Revitalization and 
Environmental Restoration Act. This bill is a ``win-win.'' It is good 
for the environment. It is good for communities. And it is good for the 
economy. More hazardous waste sites will be cleaned up. We'll have more 
parks and open space, more economic redevelopment, and more jobs.
  I'd like to emphasize that this is not just an east-coast, big city 
bill. Montana may not have as many brownfields as some of our more 
industrialized and densely-populated states, but our economic history 
has left us with our share. Wood treatment facilities. Railroad yards. 
Sawmills. Getting these sites remediated and back in use makes good 
sense in Montana and throughout the country.
  The Brewery Flats site outside Lewistown is a perfect example of a 
place where this bill can really make a difference in Montana. This 57 
acre site is located on the Big Spring Creek flood plain, two miles 
south of Lewistown. It is a railroad site, consisting of a former 
branch line, railroad switching yard, and roundhouse locomotive service 
facility. Chicago-Milwaukee railroad operated the site, then sold it to 
Burlington Northern. The city would like to acquire the site and 
convert it to recreational and educational uses. The owner is willing 
to transfer the land to the city, but the city needs to have a more 
complete understanding of the extent of the contamination before moving 
acquiring the land and undertaking a cleanup.
  The site has outstanding potential to enhance the community. It is 
adjacent to land on the Big Spring Creek that is owned by Montana Fish 
and Wildlife, so cleaning it up will allow the expansion of existing 
open space. Big Spring Creek itself is a blue-ribbon trout stream, and 
the Brewery Flats site boasts several wetland areas. Local students 
have planted trees in the area, and the educational and recreational 
potential of these adjacent sites is excellent.
  Lewistown has worked hard to utilize existing programs and resources. 
Montana DEQ performed some initial sampling on the site several years 
ago. More recently, EPA conducted a targeted site assessment, which 
revealed light contamination on half of the site, and more extensive 
contamination near the roundhouse. Although EPA did not find anything 
alarming, the assessment is a first cut, and the city does not feel 
comfortable taking ownership of the property before more extensive 
sampling is done. Lacking the resources to do this work, Lewistown has 
applied for an EPA brownfields ``showcase communities'' grant. This 
process is still pending. In addition, the city has applied to the 
Montana DNRC for a cleanup grant.
  The brownfields bill could greatly help Lewistown acquire and clean 
up Brewery Flats. And it could do the same for hundreds of sites in 
Montana and thousands around the country, by providing funding for 
brownfields revitalization programs, by giving liability protection in 
certain cases, and by providing funding and increased authority to 
state brownfields cleanup programs.
  Let me explain each of these provisions.
  Title I of the bill authorizes funding to states, tribes and local 
government to inventory, assess, and remediate brownfield sites. 
Funding is particularly critical for sites that will be used for non-
profit purposes, such as parks. In some cases, it is also needed to 
fill gaps in private financing at sites that will be redeveloped for 
commercial use. To make the funding as effective as possible, it is 
structured to provide states, tribes and local governments the 
flexibility to utilize the brownfields money and EPA's capacity in the 
way that best suits their particular needs.
  For site assessment, states, tribes and local governments can seek 
grants from EPA. For remediation, governments that wish to establish a 
program can seek grants to capitalize revolving loan funds for 
remediation. Out of these revolving loan funds, they can then provide 
loans, and grants to public and nonprofit entities, for remediation. 
Governments that do not wish to establish revolving loan funds, on the 
other hand, can seek grants from EPA for specific remediation projects. 
In addition, Title I authorizes EPA to conduct brownfields-related 
technical assistance and job training and facilitate community 
participation.
  This package of funding and EPA authority builds on the successes of 
EPA's existing brownfields program, and strengthens it by adding 
increased flexibility. To serve all of these purposes, Title I 
authorizes $150 million per year for five years. I note that, at my 
urging, the bill includes mine-scarred lands in the definition of 
brownfields and contains a provision that will ensure that funds are 
distributed fairly between urban and rural areas.
  Turning to Title II of the bill, Superfund's critics have long argued 
that the threat of Superfund liability has been a drag on the 
redevelopment of brownfields sites. Title II addresses this problem by 
protecting several classes of persons from Superfund liability. It 
protects contiguous property owners, whose property has been 
contaminated solely by migration of contamination from contiguous 
property. It protects bona fide prospective purchasers, who exercise 
appropriate care when purchasing property and did not contribute to any 
existing contamination. And it protects innocent landowners, who did 
not have reason to know of and did not contribute to contamination of 
property they already own.
  These provisions make Superfund more fair, and will promote 
brownfields redevelopment by providing certainty to property owners and 
developers about what they need to do to avoid Superfund liability.
  Title III clarifies the relationship between state cleanup programs 
and EPA's Superfund program. Superfund critics have long argued that 
the possibility that EPA could second-guess state-approved cleanups has 
discouraged brownfields remediation. At the same time, I and other have 
argued that we need to preserve the federal government's ability to use 
Superfund authorities to deal with dangerous situations at sites 
cleaned up under state programs in the rare case in which the cleanup 
is inadequate and there is a threat to human health or the environment.
  The tension between these two views has been one of the major 
obstacles to moving brownfields legislation in the past. This bill 
forges a new compromise on this issue, one that should appeal to both 
sides in the debate. On the one hand, it gives more certainty to those 
who clean up brownfield sites under state programs. On the other hand, 
it preserves EPA's ability to use Superfund authorities to address 
serious problems.
  Mr. President, putting these changes all together, the bill will 
expedite cleanups at Brewery Flats and all across the country. That, 
again, is good for the environment, good for communities, and good for 
the country.
  One final point. This bill reflects a moderate, bipartisan, 
compromise. It shows that we can roll up our sleeves and resolve our 
differences.
  For that, I complement the new chairman of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, Senator Smith, and the chairman of the Superfund 
Subcommittee, Senator Chafee. They've done a great job.
  I'd also like to pay a special complement to the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg. He has accomplished many things 
during his 18 years in the Senate. One of the most important has been 
his leadership on environmental issues. More than anyone else, he has 
protected, and improved, the Superfund program.
  If we enact the Chafee-Lautenberg bill this year, and I believe we 
can, it

[[Page S4843]]

will be a fitting capstone to his Senate career.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. DeWine and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 2701. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
tax credit for donations of computers to senior centers, to require a 
pilot program to enhance the availability of Internet access for older 
Americans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                INTERNET ACCESS FOR SENIORS ACT OF 2000

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, the opportunity to live a healthy 
and productive life can be enriched by something new: access to the 
Internet. But according to a 1999 Forrester Research report, only 8 
percent of seniors age 65 and above have Internet access compared to 40 
percent of the population under age 65. According to an unpublished 
Department of Commerce study, the percentage of low-income seniors with 
Internet access is even less: only 1.5 percent. My bill, the Internet 
Access for Seniors Act of 2000, will help narrow this digital divide 
between seniors and the rest of the population. I am pleased to be 
joined by Senators DeWine and Rockefeller in introducing this bill.
  A recent study by Stanford's Institute for the Quantitative Study of 
Society shows the digital divide among different demographic groups. 
The variables are age, education, gender, race, ethnicity, and income. 
It shows that by far the most important factors facilitating or 
inhibiting Internet access are age and education--not income, not race, 
not ethnicity, and not gender. According to the study's authors, these 
variables account for less than 5 percent of the change in the rates of 
Internet access and are statistically insignificant. In contrast, and I 
quote, ``a college education boosts rates of Internet access by well 
over 40 percentage points compared to the less educated group, while 
people over 65 show a more than 40 percentage point drop in their rates 
of Internet access compared to those under 25.''
  Ironically, seniors, who have more limited access to the Internet, 
can benefit more from Internet access than others because, in addition 
to a digital divide, they suffer from a transportation divide. The 
ability to travel from one place to another is vital to our daily 
lives. In fact, good transportation access is vital for many of the 
same reasons as good Internet access. But seniors are the least mobile 
demographic segment of our adult population. One way that people cope 
with poor access to telecommunications is to rely on transportation. 
But seniors lack this coping mechanism. In other words, if any 
demographic group in our society actually needs superior access to the 
Internet, it is seniors.
  Our society has long recognized that access to certain kinds of 
information is a public good. That is why we have schools and 
libraries, and it is why we have the E-rate, which provides Internet 
access to schools and libraries. Until now, however, senior centers 
have been left out of the mix. Some may say, ``Why don't seniors go to 
the library to get Internet access?'' Many seniors prefer to go to 
senior centers because they are specifically designed to serve their 
needs. For example, senior centers routinely provide some type of 
special transportation for seniors to get to and from the senior 
centers. Asking libraries to take on the added cost of providing such 
transportation is clearly less desirable from a cost--not to mention 
logistical--standpoint. When a senior makes the effort to get to a 
senior center, he can take advantage of a half dozen services 
specifically designed to serve his needs, and it seems wasteful to ask 
libraries to take on those additional services.
  There are many ways seniors can benefit from Internet access: taking 
courses, finding a job, becoming better-informed citizens, and shopping 
for essential goods and services. One application, access to health 
information, is obviously essential to seniors and is also an area of 
great interest to me.
  Mr. President, there is an explosion of useful health information 
being made available over the Internet. According to a recent front 
page New York Times story, there are now more than 100,000 healthcare 
websites available on the Internet. Health information is being made 
available on the Internet because consumers demand it.
  There are many reasons seniors may prefer to get health information 
over the Internet rather than in person.
  Some seniors may not want to wait until their next doctor appointment 
before finding out more about their ailment. For example, if a senior 
gets a diagnosis of cancer, she may not want to wait to find out more 
about the seriousness of her condition and the options available.
  Some seniors may find a trip to the clinician's office an onerous and 
often all-day activity. Clearly the ability to communicate with a 
clinician without making a special trip--and at odd hours--would be of 
great benefit. Recognizing these needs, some HMOs already allow seniors 
to communicate with their caregiver via the Internet to request 
relatively routine services such as a dosage change. This also saves on 
Medicare costs.
  Some seniors may want to talk to other people who share their 
condition. For example, most medical websites now have chat rooms where 
fellow sufferers can get together to share information about new 
treatment options and day-to-day tips for coping with specific 
conditions. These sites also provide advice and support to the spouses 
and other caregivers who must care for victims of Alzheimer's, heart 
disease, cancer, and other afflictions of the elderly.
  My legislation is designed to bring senior centers, particularly 
those in low-income or rural areas, into the digital age. I chose 
senior centers as a vehicle to alleviate the digital divide for seniors 
because these centers serve large numbers of seniors, especially the 
disadvantaged seniors targeted by this bill. Unfortunately, there are 
no national statistics regarding how many senior centers have computers 
with Internet access accessible to seniors. However, my office did a 
survey of Oregon senior centers. We found that 52 percent lacked access 
to computers and that 71 percent lacked access to the Internet. In many 
cases, the quality of computers and Internet access was low. Many 
computers were at least five years old. Some were ten or more years 
old. Internet connections were often made with older versions of 
browsers that could not access contemporary web sites.
  My bill has two major components. The first provides a tax credit for 
individuals and organizations that contribute computer equipment to 
senior centers. The second creates a pilot program, called the S-rate, 
to provide subsidies for qualified low-income or rural senior centers 
to access the Internet.

  The tax credit, essentially identical to the tax credit for computer 
equipment donated to schools passed March 1 of this year in the New 
Millennium Classrooms Act, is equal to 30 percent of the fair market 
value of the donated computer equipment. To receive the tax deduction, 
the computer equipment must be three years old or less. For donations 
to senior centers located within empowerment zones, enterprise 
communities, and Indian reservations, the tax credit is increased to 50 
percent. The tax deduction is terminated for taxable years beginning 
three years after the date of enactment of this act, and we impose a 
limit of 10 computers per senior center.
  The S-rate covers up to 90 percent of the costs associated with 
Internet access to senior centers. Covered costs include computers, 
software, training, and maintenance. Our bill seeks to narrow the 
increasingly important divide between information haves and have-nots 
in our society. Our bill is only a pilot program that will invest $10 
million a year in getting our seniors online. The program sunsets after 
3 years.
  The Secretary of the Department of Commerce will administer the S-
rate. In selecting among eligible senior centers, the Secretary will 
consider the senior center's need and proposed applications. Need 
includes the number of seniors served by the senior center, the extent 
to which the senior center already provides Internet access, and the 
extent to which the senior center serves an area with a high percentage 
of low-income or rural individuals. Applications include health 
information, job training, lifelong education, and any other 
applications that fulfill an important social need.
  One of the Secretary's tasks is to develop enabling tools for the 
senior centers. For example, the Secretary could offer an array of 
fill-in-the-blank web

[[Page S4844]]

templates to make it easy for senior centers to post information on the 
web and create their own home pages. The Secretary could provide 
information to senior centers about privacy concerns, especially 
regarding sensitive matters such as health information. The Secretary 
could suggest minimum standards for web hosting services seeking to 
serve senior centers.
  One of the wonderful things about the Internet is the ability of one 
site to learn from another. The Secretary could create a web-based 
clearinghouse of all the senior centers funded under the pilot program. 
Innovative and outstanding web-based services could be specially marked 
so that other senior centers could quickly learn from the best 
practices of others. The Secretary could set up a technical chat room 
so that senior center administrators, in their role as webmasters, 
could share concerns and ideas. The Secretary could set up an Internet 
hotline for oversight; that is, to be alerted if an administrator 
doesn't use the S-rate for its stated purpose. And because the Internet 
can be used for distance education and online help, the Secretary could 
fund some senior centers to train other senior citizens.
  Let me close with one further thought. Closing the digital divide for 
seniors is not just about social justice; it's also about basic dollars 
and cents. Consider this: according to the National Institute of Aging, 
more than two-thirds of every healthcare dollar--much of it government 
funded--goes to seniors. If we can empower seniors to be wise health 
consumers, we can use market mechanisms, rather than government red 
tape, to make sure that seniors get the healthcare they need. The 
Internet now offers that opportunity. Let's not squander it.
  I ask unanimous consent that my statement and 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. 2701

       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 Access for Seniors 
     Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR COMPUTER DONATIONS TO SENIOR CENTERS.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     business related credits) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 45D. CREDIT FOR COMPUTER DONATIONS TO SENIOR CENTERS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the 
     computer donation credit determined under this section is an 
     amount equal to 30 percent of the qualified computer 
     contributions made by the taxpayer during the taxable year as 
     determined after the application of section 170(e)(6)(A).
       ``(b) Qualified Computer Contribution.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified computer 
     contribution' has the meaning given the term `qualified 
     elementary or secondary educational contribution' by section 
     170(e)(6)(B), except that--
       ``(A) clause (ii) of such section shall be applied by 
     substituting `3 years' for `2 years',
       ``(B) clause (iii) of such section shall be applied by 
     inserting `, the person from whom the donor reacquires the 
     property,' after `the donor', and
       ``(C) notwithstanding clauses (i) and (iv) of such section, 
     such term shall include the contribution of computer 
     technology or equipment to eligible senior centers to be used 
     by individuals who have attained 60 years of age to improve 
     job skills in computers.
       ``(2) Eligible senior center.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible senior center' means 
     any facility which is eligible--
       ``(i) to receive funding as a senior center under title III 
     of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3021 et seq.), 
     and
       ``(ii) to receive the qualified computer contribution as 
     determined under subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Eligibility to receive contribution.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A)(ii), a senior center is eligible to receive 
     a qualified computer contribution in any calendar year if 
     such contribution when added to all preceding qualified 
     computer contributions for such year does not result in such 
     center receiving more than 10 computers through such 
     contributions.
       ``(c) Increased Percentage for Contributions to Entities in 
     Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Indian 
     Reservations.--In the case of a qualified computer 
     contribution to an entity located in an empowerment zone or 
     enterprise community designated under section 1391 or an 
     Indian reservation (as defined in section 168(j)(6)), 
     subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting `50 percent' 
     for `30 percent'.
       ``(d) Certain Rules Made Applicable.--For purposes of this 
     section, rules similar to the rules of paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     of section 41(f) shall apply.
       ``(e) Termination.--This section shall not apply to taxable 
     years beginning on or after the date which is 3 years after 
     the date of the enactment of the Internet Access for Seniors 
     Act of 2000.''.
       (b) Current Year Business Credit Calculation.--Section 
     38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     current year business credit) is amended by striking ``plus'' 
     at the end of paragraph (11), by striking the period at the 
     end of paragraph (12) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(13) the computer donation credit determined under 
     section 45D(a).''.
       (c) Disallowance of Deduction by Amount of Credit.--Section 
     280C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     certain expenses for which credits are allowable) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Credit for Computer Donations.--No deduction shall be 
     allowed for that portion of the qualified computer 
     contributions (as defined in section 45D(b)) made during the 
     taxable year that is equal to the amount of credit determined 
     for the taxable year under section 45D(a). In the case of a 
     corporation which is a member of a controlled group of 
     corporations (within the meaning of section 52(a)) or a trade 
     or business which is treated as being under common control 
     with other trades or businesses (within the meaning of 
     section 52(b)), this subsection shall be applied under rules 
     prescribed by the Secretary similar to the rules applicable 
     under subsections (a) and (b) of section 52.''.
       (d) Limitation on Carryback.--Subsection (d) of section 39 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to carryback 
     and carryforward of unused credits) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(9) No carryback of computer donation credit before 
     effective date.--No amount of unused business credit 
     available under section 45D may be carried back to a taxable 
     year beginning on or before the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph.''.
       (e) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 45C the following:

``Sec. 45D. Credit for computer donations to senior centers.''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. PILOT PROGRAM FOR ENHANCED INTERNET ACCESS FOR OLDER 
                   AMERICANS.

       (a) Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce shall, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     carry out a pilot program to enhance the availability of 
     Internet access for older Americans. The pilot program shall 
     meet the requirements of this section.
       (2) Discharge of responsibilities.--The Secretary of 
     Commerce shall carry out the pilot program through the 
     Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and 
     Information, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall consult with the Secretary of Commerce under the pilot 
     program through the Assistant Secretary for Aging of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services.
       (b) Participation of Senior Centers.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce shall select 
     senior centers for participation in the pilot program under 
     this section from among senior centers.
       (2) Application.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     each senior center seeking to participate in the pilot 
     program shall submit to the Secretary an application for 
     participation in the pilot program containing such 
     information as the Secretary shall require.
       (B) Applications for several centers.--An entity consisting 
     of or operating two or more senior centers may submit a 
     single application under this paragraph on behalf of such 
     senior centers that seek to participate in the pilot program.
       (3) Selection of senior centers.--In selecting a senior 
     center for participation in the pilot program, the Secretary 
     take into account the following:
       (A) The extent to which the senior center already provides 
     Internet access for older individuals.
       (B) The extent to which the senior center serves an area 
     with a high percentage of low-income older individuals, a 
     rural area, or both such areas.
       (C) The number of older individuals who will be provided 
     Internet access as a result of the participation of the 
     senior center in the pilot program.
       (D) The extent to which the participation of the senior 
     center in the pilot program will result in the receipt by 
     older individuals of health or education information or job 
     training through the Internet.
       (c) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce shall make 
     grants to senior centers selected by the Secretary under 
     subsection (b) for participation in the pilot program under 
     this section.

[[Page S4845]]

       (B) Recipient of certain grants.--If the senior centers 
     selected by the Secretary include senior centers covered by 
     an application under subsection (b)(2)(B), the Secretary 
     shall make the grant to such centers as a single grant 
     through the entity submitting the application under that 
     subsection.
       (2) Amount of grants.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), the 
     Secretary shall determine the amount of the grant to be made 
     to each senior center selected to participate in the pilot 
     program.
       (B) Larger amounts for certain centers.--The Secretary 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable, make grants in 
     larger amounts to senior centers selected to participate in 
     the pilot program that serve areas with a high percentage of 
     low-income older individuals, rural areas, or both such 
     areas.
       (C) Annual limit.--The amount of the grant made to a given 
     senior center in any year may not exceed $25,000.
       (d) Use of Grant Amounts.--
       (1) In general.--A senior center receiving a grant under 
     the pilot program under this section shall use the amount of 
     the grant to cover or defray the costs of the senior center 
     in making available Internet access to or for older 
     individuals at or through the facilities of the senior 
     center, including costs relating to telecommunications 
     services, Internet access, internal connections, computers, 
     input and output devices, software, training, and operations 
     and maintenance.
       (2) Limitation on percentage of costs covered by grant.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall specify in each grant 
     to a senior center selected to participate in the pilot 
     program the maximum percentage of the costs of the senior 
     center that may be covered or defrayed by such grant.
       (B) Higher percentage for certain centers.--In specifying 
     maximum percentages under this paragraph, the Secretary 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable, specify higher 
     percentages for senior centers serving areas with a high 
     percentage of low-income older individuals, rural areas, or 
     both such areas.
       (C) Maximum percentage.--The highest maximum percentage 
     that may be specified by the Secretary under this paragraph 
     shall be 90 percent.
       (3) Additional limitation on use of funds.--Amounts 
     received by a senior center under a grant under subsection 
     (c) may not be used for any administrative purpose unless 
     such purpose relates directly to the participation of the 
     senior center in the pilot program under this section.
       (e) Duration.--
       (1) Commencement.--The Secretary of Commerce shall commence 
     the pilot program under this section as soon as practicable 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Termination.--The Secretary may not make any grant 
     under the pilot program after the date that is three years 
     after the commencement of the pilot program under paragraph 
     (1).
       (f) Report.--
       (1) Requirement.--Not later than two years after the 
     commencement of the pilot program under subsection (e)(1), 
     the Secretary of Commerce shall submit to Congress a report 
     on the pilot program.
       (2) Elements.--The report under paragraph (1) shall set 
     forth the following:
       (A) An estimate of the cost per senior center of making 
     available Internet access to or for older individuals at or 
     through senior centers in rural areas and in non-rural areas, 
     including a separate estimate of the cost of--
       (i) purchasing computers and associated hardware;
       (ii) purchasing software;
       (iii) purchasing and installing internal connections;
       (iv) subscribing to Internet and telecommunications 
     services at narrowband data rates; and
       (v) operating and maintaining the systems which provide 
     such access.
       (B) An assessment of the extent to which computers and 
     Internet access are currently available to or for older 
     individuals at or through senior centers in the United 
     States, including--
       (i) a comparison of the availability of computers and 
     Internet access at or though senior centers in rural areas 
     with the availability of computers and Internet access at or 
     through senior centers in non-rural areas; and
       (ii) a comparison of the availability of computers and 
     Internet access at or through senior centers that serve a 
     high percentage of low-income older individuals with the 
     availability of computers and Internet access at or through 
     senior centers that do not serve a high percentage of low-
     income older individuals.
       (C) A proposal for a program to provide additional 
     subsidies or assistance to enhance the availability of 
     Internet access to or for older individuals, under which 
     program--
       (i) all senior centers would be eligible for such subsidies 
     or assistance; and
       (ii) priority would be given in the provision of such 
     subsidies or assistance to senior centers that serve a high 
     percentage of low-income older individuals or are located in 
     rural areas.
       (D) An estimate of the annual cost of the program proposed 
     under subparagraph (C).
       (g) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Low-income older individual.--The term ``low-income 
     older individual'' means an older individual whose income 
     level is at or below the poverty line (as that term is 
     defined in section 102(41) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 
     (42 U.S.C. 3002(41)).
       (2) Older individual.--The term ``older individual'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 102(38) of the Older 
     Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3002(38)).
       (3) Senior center.--The term ``senior center'' means any 
     facility that is eligible to receive funding as a senior 
     center under title III of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 3021 et seq.).
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 for purposes of the 
     pilot program required by this section.
       (2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations in paragraph (1) shall remain 
     available until expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 2702. A bill to require reports on the progress of the Federal 
Government in implementing Presidential Decision Directive No. 63 (PDD-
63); to the Committee on Armed Services.


reporting progress on implementing presidential decision directive no. 
                              63 (pdd-63)

 Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation with Senator Schumer. I wanted to thank my colleague and 
his staff for their hard work and full partnership in arriving at what 
I believe is a critical first step to insuring this nation's security 
in a world of growing cyber threats. I have been concerned for some 
time now that Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD 63) does not 
clearly define a role for the Department of Defense (DOD). In one 
sentence, PDD 63 states that the DOD is assigned the role of 
``defense'' but does not elaborate on how it will accomplish this vague 
assignment. Our legislation will require that the DOD begin the 
thinking process of how it is integrating its different capabilities 
and assets into an ``indications and warning architecture.'' Each of 
the Services is developing its individual information warfare 
capabilities at this moment, and it is not clear how they are being 
integrated or coordinated. The DOD was supposed to report on the future 
of the National Communications System (NCS) in 1996 and 1997, but as 
far as I know that report was never completed. NCS has been identified 
as a unique public-private partnership with major telephone carriers 
and information systems providers and could be a useful entity to 
defend against a widespread attack.
  This bill will require the DOD to describe how it is working with the 
intelligence community to identify, detect and counter the threat of 
information warfare programs of hostile states and potentially hostile 
sub-national organizations. One thing my Y2K experience has made very 
clear to me is that the coordination of intelligence and the proper 
identification of threat and intention is increasingly difficult. We 
often lack the human intelligence, just plain people on the ground, to 
meet the growing need for reconnaissance, and that makes coordinated 
and integrated technology all the more important.
  We must begin to work from a position of having a consistent 
understanding of the terms we use. It is central to this idea that we 
define the terms: nationally ``significant cyber event'' and ``cyber 
reconstitution.'' PDD 63 and the National Plan do not define what these 
are and the lack of definition causes confusion and impedes program 
development.
  Also, during Y2K we found that the DOD has a large dependency on 
foreign infrastructure and that we must develop a way to assure and 
defend that infrastructure electronically. Any collapse of an 
infrastructure would hurt our force projection capabilities.
  Our offensive and defensive information operations need to evolve 
together in an integrated fashion. We need to identify elements of a 
defense against an information warfare attack, including how the 
capability of the U.S. Space Command's Computer Network Attack 
Capability will be integrated into the overall cyber defense of the 
U.S.
  Mr. President, in closing I cannot overemphasis my concern for a 
thoughtful approach to cyber-defense. As many of us have become 
painfully aware, the threats are increasing at unheard of rates and our 
defenses, even in the government, have not kept pace.

[[Page S4846]]

  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. 2702

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

     SECTION 1. REPORTS ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRESS IN 
                   IMPLEMENTING PRESIDENTIAL DECISION DIRECTIVE 
                   NO. 63 (PDD-63)

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The protection of our Nation's critical infrastructure 
     is of paramount importance to the security of the United 
     States.
       (2) The vulnerability of our Nation's critical sectors--
     such as financial services, transportation, communications, 
     and energy and water supply--has increased dramatically in 
     recent years as our economy and society have become ever more 
     dependent on interconnected computer systems.
       (3) Threats to our Nation's critical infrastructure will 
     continue to grow as foreign governments, terrorist groups, 
     and cyber-criminals increasingly focus on information warfare 
     as a method of achieving their aims.
       (4) Addressing the computer-based risks to our Nation's 
     critical infrastructure requires extensive coordination and 
     cooperation within and between Federal agencies and the 
     private sector.
       (5) Presidential Decision Directive No. 63 (PDD-63) 
     identifies 12 areas critical to the functioning of the United 
     States and requires certain Federal agencies, and encourages 
     private sector industries, to develop and comply with 
     strategies intended to enhance the Nation's ability to 
     protect its critical infrastructure.
       (6) PDD-63 requires lead Federal agencies to work with 
     their counterparts in the private sector to create early 
     warning information sharing systems and other cyber-security 
     strategies.
       (7) PDD-63 further requires that key Federal agencies 
     develop their own internal information assurance plans, and 
     that these plans be fully operational not later than May 
     2003.
       (b) Report Requirements.--(1) Not later than July 1, 2001, 
     the President shall submit to Congress a comprehensive report 
     detailing the specific steps taken by the Federal Government 
     as of the date of the report to develop infrastructure 
     assurance strategies and the timetable of the Federal 
     Government for operationalizing and fully implementing 
     critical information systems defense by May, 2003. The report 
     shall include the following:
       (A) A detailed summary of the progress of each Federal 
     agency in developing an internal information assurance plan.
       (B) The progress of Federal agencies in establishing 
     partnerships with relevant private sector industries.
       (C) The status of cyber-security and information assurance 
     capabilities in the private sector industries at the 
     forefront of critical infrastructure protection.
       (2)(A) Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to Congress a detailed report on Department of Defense plans 
     and programs to organize a coordinated defense against 
     attacks on critical infrastructure and critical information-
     based systems in both the Federal Government and the private 
     sector. The report shall be provided in both classified and 
     unclassified formats.
       (B) The report shall include the following:
       (i) A description of the current role of the Department of 
     Defense in implementing Presidential Decision Directive No. 
     63 (PDD-63).
       (ii) A description of the manner in which the Department is 
     integrating its various capabilities and assets (including 
     the Army Land Information Warfare Activity (LIWA), the Joint 
     Task Force on Computer Network Defense (JTF-CND), and the 
     National Communications System) into an indications and 
     warning architecture.
       (iii) A description of Department work with the 
     intelligence community to identify, detect, and counter the 
     threat of information warfare programs by potentially hostile 
     foreign national governments and sub-national groups.
       (iv) A definitions of the terms ``nationally significant 
     cyber event'' and ``cyber reconstitution''.
       (v) A description of the organization of Department to 
     protect its foreign-based infrastructure and networks.
       (vi) An identification of the elements of a defense against 
     an information warfare attack, including the integration of 
     the Computer Network Attack Capability of the United States 
     Space Command into the overall cyber-defense of the United 
     States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 2703. A bill to amend the provisions of title 39, United States 
Code, relating to the manner in which pay policies and schedules and 
fringe benefit programs for postmasters are established; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                the postmasters fairness and rights act

 Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Postmasters Fairness and Rights Act, which will allow our nation's 
postmasters to take an active and constructive role in managing their 
post offices and discussing compensation issues. I am joined by 
Senators Durbin, Sarbanes, Mikulski, Edwards, and Baucus in offering 
this legislation.
  Currently, Postmasters lack an equitable process for discussing pay 
and benefits and have seen an erosion of their role in improving the 
quality of mail services to postal patrons and managing their local 
post offices. These inequities have contributed to the decline in the 
number of Postmasters since the reorganization of the Postal Service 30 
years ago.
  Our bill would create a positive and fair procedure to address the 
inequalities that have resulted from the present ``consultative 
process.'' This would foster better mail services by investing 
Postmasters with greater input in operational decision-making, 
improving Postmasters' morale, and helping attract and retain qualified 
Postmasters. The measure would also define ``Postmaster'' for the first 
time.
  Mr. President, the Postal Service estimates that seven million 
customers a day transact business at post offices. We expect timely 
delivery of the mail 6 days a week, and the Postal Service does not 
disappoint us. Given the regularity of mail delivery and the number of 
Americans visiting post offices daily, it is no wonder that we have 
come to view our neighborhood post offices as cornerstones of our 
communities. In fact, many of our towns and cities have developed 
around a post office where the postmaster served as the town's only 
link to the federal government.
  Our nation's postmasters are on the front line to ensure that the 
mail gets delivered in a timely manner, and they have helped fuel the 
infrastructure that boosted the performance ratings of the Postal 
Service to an all-time high in 1999.
  Despite these successes, there remains the question of pay and 
compensation, which this bill addresses. I would also like to note that 
a House companion bill, H.R. 3842, introduced on March 8, 2000, enjoys 
bipartisan support from 23 cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation. Thank you Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that 
the bill be printed in full in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2703

       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 ``Postmasters Fairness and 
     Rights Act''.

     SEC. 2. POSTMASTERS TO BE COVERED BY AGREEMENTS RELATING TO 
                   PAY POLICIES AND SCHEDULES AND FRINGE BENEFIT 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Section 1004 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by 
     redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections (i) and 
     (j), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (f) the 
     following:
       ``(g)(1) The Postal Service shall, within 45 days of each 
     date on which an agreement is reached on a collective 
     bargaining agreement between the Postal Service and the 
     bargaining representative recognized under section 1203 which 
     represents the largest number of employees, make a proposal 
     for any changes in pay policies and schedules and fringe 
     benefit programs for postmasters which are to be in effect 
     during the same period as covered by such agreement.
       ``(2) The Postal Service and the postmasters' organization 
     (or, if more than 1, all postmasters' organizations) shall 
     strive to resolve any differences concerning the proposal 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) If, within 60 days following the submission of the 
     proposal, the Postal Service and the postmasters' 
     organization (or organizations) are unable to reach 
     agreement, either the Postal Service or the postmasters' 
     organization (or organizations jointly) shall have the right 
     to refer the dispute to an arbitration board established 
     under paragraph (4).
       ``(4) An arbitration board shall be established to consider 
     and decide a dispute arising under paragraph (3) and shall 
     consist of 3 members, 1 of whom shall be selected by the 
     Postal Service, 1 by the postmasters' organization (or 
     organizations jointly), and the third by the 2 thus selected. 
     If either the Postal Service or the postmasters' organization 
     (or organizations) fail to select a member within 30 days 
     after the dispute is referred to an arbitration board under 
     this subsection, or if the members chosen fail to agree on 
     the third person within 5 days after their first meeting, the 
     selection shall be made by the Director of the Federal 
     Mediation and Conciliation Service.

[[Page S4847]]

       ``(5) The arbitration board shall give the parties a full 
     and fair hearing, including an opportunity for each party to 
     present evidence in support of its claims and an opportunity 
     to present its case in person, by counsel, or by such other 
     representative as such party may elect. Decisions by the 
     arbitration board shall be conclusive and binding upon the 
     parties. The arbitration board shall render its decision 
     within 45 days after its appointment.
       ``(6) Costs of the arbitration board shall be shared 
     equally by the Postal Service and the postmasters' 
     organization (or organizations), with the Postal Service to 
     be responsible for one-half of those costs and the 
     postmasters' organization (or organizations) to be 
     responsible for the remainder.
       ``(7) Nothing in this subsection shall be considered to 
     affect the application of section 1005.''.

     SEC. 3. RIGHT OF POSTMASTERS' ORGANIZATIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN 
                   PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAMS.

       The second sentence of section 1004(b) of title 39, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``or that a managerial 
     organization (other than an organization representing 
     supervisors) represents a substantial percentage of 
     managerial employees,'' and inserting ``or that a managerial 
     organization (other than an organization representing 
     supervisors or postmasters) represents a substantial 
     percentage of managerial employees, or that an organization 
     qualifies as a postmasters' organization,''.

     SEC. 4. POSTMASTERS AND POSTMASTERS' ORGANIZATION DEFINED.

       Subsection (i) of section 1004 of title 39, United States 
     Code, as so redesignated by section 2, is amended by striking 
     ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1), by striking the period 
     at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting a semicolon, and by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) `postmaster' means an individual who manages, with or 
     without the assistance of subordinate managers or 
     supervisors, the operations of a post office; and
       ``(4) `postmasters' organization' means, with respect to a 
     year, any organization of postmasters whose membership as of 
     June 30th of the preceding year included not less than 20 
     percent of all individuals employed as postmasters as of that 
     date.''.

     SEC. 5. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 1001(e) of title 39, United States Code, is 
     amended (in the matter before paragraph (1)) by inserting 
     ``agreements under section 1004(g),'' after ``regulations,''.
       (b) Section 1003(a) of title 39, United States Code, is 
     amended in the first sentence by inserting ``section 1004(g) 
     of this title,'' before ``section 8G''.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect after the 
     end of the 90-day period beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERREY (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Johnson, 
        Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Roberts):
  S. 2704. A bill to provide additional authority to the Army Corps of 
Engineers to protect, enhance, and restore fish and wildlife habitat on 
the Missouri River and to improve the environmental quality and public 
use and appreciation of the Missouri River; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


               the missouri river valley improvement act

 Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, one year ago I came to the floor of 
the United States Senate to introduce legislation designed to improve 
the environmental quality and public use and appreciation of the 
Missouri River. The Missouri River Valley Improvement Act of 1999, 
sought to also mark the upcoming bicentennial anniversary of the Lewis 
and Clark expeditions of this great river. At that time I asked my 
colleagues who represent the states and communities along the Missouri 
River to look closely at the bill and join me as cosponsors in support 
of the legislation.

  Through the hard work of state officials, river organizations and 
citizens throughout the Missouri River basin, many important 
improvements have been made to this bill. I believe these improvements 
strengthens our commitment to protecting the Missouri River. I am 
pleased, therefore, to introduce today, along with my Colleague's 
Senator Daschle, Senator Bond, Senator Johnson, Senator Brownback and 
Senator Roberts, the Missouri River Valley Improvement Act of 2000.
  This legislation maintains the commitment made in last year's bill to 
aid native river fish and wildlife, reduce flood loss, and enhance 
recreation and tourism throughout the basin. Additionally, this bill 
provides authorities for the revitalization of historic riverfronts, 
similar to the ongoing `Back to the River' revitalization project 
currently underway in my home state of Nebraska. The new legislation 
also recognizes the commitment Congress made last year to habitat 
restoration efforts along the Missouri River by authorizing resources 
for these projects.
  I am proud of the bipartisan support garnered for this legislation. 
This bill demonstrates that common ground exists when it comes to 
strengthening the health of the Missouri River. Those who use the river 
whether it be for recreational, commercial, or environmental purposes 
recognize the benefits of preserving this National treasure. Protecting 
native habitat along the Missouri River and enhancing environmental 
understanding through riverfront restoration and scientific monitoring 
is a legacy we should all want to leave our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. President, it is my hope that this bill becomes part of the 
growing recognition that the environmental revitalization of the 
Missouri River is in all of our interests. The Missouri River Valley 
Improvement Act of 2000 will help to restore and improve our access and 
enjoyment of the river, and will provide vital economic, recreational 
and education opportunities for everyone who lives along and visits 
this great river, the Crown Jewel of the Midwest.
      By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Akaka, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 2705. A bill to provide for the training of individuals, during a 
Presidential transition, who the President intends to appoint to 
certain key positions, to provide for a study and report on improving 
the financial disclosure process for certain Presidential nominees, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                THE PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION ACT OF 2000

 Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, Senator Lieberman and I are today 
introducing the Presidential Transition Act of 2000 on behalf of 
ourselves and Senators Akaka, Durbin, Levin, and Voinovich. The ability 
of a President-elect to effectively transition from campaigning to 
governing is obviously of critical importance and this legislation is 
designed to initiate much needed improvements in the process.
  A President-elect must face the management challenge of transitioning 
from leading a successful campaign operation to leading the nation. 
There are only 73 days from election day to inauguration day. 
Transition planning should begin prior to election day. The President-
elect should have the ability to move immediately to put a new team in 
place. That team should receive the critical information it needs to be 
prepared to take over the management of the federal government on 
inauguration day. Potential nominees should be able to move through the 
nomination and confirmation process without unnecessary barriers.
  The magnitude of the need for an effective presidential transition 
and the recognized problems with past ones have led a number of private 
sector organizations to focus on the problem and solutions to it. 
Several, including the Presidential Appointee Initiative of the 
Brookings Institution, Transition to Governing of the American 
Enterprise Institute and Brookings, and the Heritage Foundation's 
Mandate for Leadership 2000, have contributed to our consideration of 
this problem. These groups and others are independently preparing a 
body of knowledge which will assist the new administration to get an 
effective, timely start. I ask unanimous consent that an article by 
Carl Cannon in National Journal and one by David Broder in the 
Washington Post, which describe the significant work which is underway, 
be printed at the conclusion of my remarks, followed by the text of our 
legislation.
  The legislation encompasses and expands on H.R. 3137, legislation 
sponsored by Representative Steve Horn, Chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Management, Information 
and Technology and passed by the House of Representatives. 
Representative Horn's bill provides for the payment of expenses during 
the transition for briefings and other activities designed to transfer 
key policy and administrative information to prospective presidential 
staff in order to ensure a

[[Page S4848]]

smooth transition from one administration to another. The current 
Administration has recognized the importance of these activities by 
including additional funds for it in its FY 2001 budget request for the 
General Services Administration.
  Our bill supplements the framework established by H.R. 3137. Our bill 
includes the authorization of federal funds to be spent to provide for 
the training and orientation of officials a President intends to 
nominate to key positions. This important provision allows political 
appointees to hit the ground running by preparing for the job before 
they are nominated.
  Additionally, our bill requires the preparation of a ``transition 
directory.'' This valuable tool will be a compilation of materials that 
provide information to prospective appointees about the organization of 
federal departments and agencies, as well as the statutory and 
administrative authorities, functions, duties, and responsibilities of 
each federal department and agency. With this tool, prospective 
appointees can better manage the new, important positions they are 
preparing to undertake.
  Finally, the bill requires the Office of Government Ethics conduct a 
study and submit a report to Congress on potential improvements to the 
current financial disclosure process Presidential nominees are 
currently required to undergo. Certainly, nothing the Office of 
Government Ethics recommends should in any way lessen the requirement 
that potential nominees disclose possible conflicts of interest. But, 
the Office of Government Ethics should recommend ways to improve the 
process of obtaining, reviewing, and disclosing such information in 
order to reduce the burden the current process places on potential 
appointees and the people who review the information.
  Mr. President, we believe this legislation will help improve and 
smooth the process by which elected Presidents and their political 
appointees transition to power and assume their responsibilities. We 
hope the incentives provided in this legislation will encourage and 
enable presidential candidates, presidents-elect and newly sworn 
presidents to be up and running on the day after the inauguration.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From National Journal, May 13, 2000]

                    Improving the White House Memory

                          (By Carl M. Cannon)

       White House Chief of Staff John Podesta recalls being 
     jazzed his first day in the Clinton Administration--until he 
     saw his workstation. There wasn't a single piece of paper on 
     his desk, and not so much as a diagram telling him where the 
     men's room was. There was a computer monitor and processor, 
     but the monitor was blank and the processor had wires poking 
     out of it--someone had removed the hard drive. This was no 
     crime of vandalism. It was the law, at work.
       While the Constitution sets clear rules on how the country 
     goes about electing a President, there has always been a 
     haphazard quality to the transition. One reason is that both 
     long-standing custom and the Presidential Records Act of 1978 
     dictate that almost all White House offices be swept clean of 
     all records, including basic information that would help a 
     new President get off to a good start.
       ``By law, there's no institutional memory,'' says political 
     scientist Martha Joynt Kumar of Towson State University, the 
     author of two books on White House operations. ``A new 
     Administration, especially when there's a change of party, 
     begins without a written record compiled by the previous 
     occupants. Those who have worked there almost uniformly 
     describe this as a handicap.''
       The absence of a record can be an issue even in what ought 
     to be the least partisan of transitions--the ascendancy of a 
     Vice President to the Oval Office in midterm. When President 
     Franklin D. Roosevelt died in April 1945, Harry S. Truman's 
     incoming staff lacked access to key information, including 
     the fact that the United States was close to developing the 
     atomic bomb. As Vice President, Truman had not known the 
     weapon existed, and it was not until 13 days after he became 
     President that Secretary of War Henry L. Stimpson informed 
     him of the project.
       ``I felt,'' Truman explained of his sudden thrust into the 
     Oval Office. ``like the moon, the stars, and all the planets 
     had fallen on me.''
       Even when the nation is at peace, the lack of a written 
     record in the White House National Security Council is a 
     continuing problem. ``The new NSC staff spends months re-
     creating them or negotiating with the archivists to get 
     access to them,'' says John Fortier, a researcher at the 
     American Enterprise Institute. ``There has to be a better 
     way.''
       In other words, Podesta was hardly the first appointee to 
     wonder about this process. Michael Jackson, who held a 
     powerful post as the White House's Cabinet secretary, recalls 
     a scramble for furniture on the first day of the Bush 
     Administration more appropriate for the movie Animal House 
     than the White House.
       ``The first day what they did is, they pulled out a lot of 
     the furniture from the offices and into the halls, where 
     there were piles of credenzas, desks, wing chairs,'' Jackson 
     told Kumar. ``The people who were smart and knew the drill 
     got there early and went and just took stuff.
       Commentator David Gergen, who has served in two Republican 
     Administrations and one Democratic (Clinton's), maintains 
     that this early confusion in a cleaned-out, clueless White 
     House comes at a price for the new President--and the 
     country. ``The early months are so important because that's 
     when you have the most authority,'' Gergen said. But that's 
     when you also have the least capacity for making the right 
     decisions.''
       Other White House veterans assert that the lack of 
     institutional memory helps explain why incoming 
     Administrations seem to stubbornly repeat the mistakes of 
     their predecessors, especially in their first days. Jimmy 
     Carter, Ronald Regan, and Bill Clinton, for instance, all 
     vowed during their campaigns to cut the size of White 
     House staff, but their efforts to follow through on this 
     ill-considered promise produced results ranging from poor 
     to disastrous.
       ``Cicero said that he who does not know history would 
     forever remain a child,'' says David M. Abshire, who heads 
     the Center for the Study of the Presidency and who assisted 
     in the Reagan transition. ``Believe it or not, some 
     Presidents have done childish things.''
       But such scholars as Abshir and Kumar insist that this is 
     hardly all presidential fault: Imagine a $1.8 trillion 
     company--that's the approximate size of the federal budget--
     in which the corporate headquarters is vacated every four or 
     eight years. Moreover, hardly any of the support staff stays 
     on, all the files vanish, and the shareholders are given only 
     two months' notice about the identity of the incoming CEO.
       ``The White House is not simply a spoil of victory,'' says 
     former Carter White House aide Harrison Wellford, an attorney 
     who now handles corporate mergers. ``It's the nerve center of 
     the greatest government in the world, and we ought to at 
     least give it the same respect that you do when you take over 
     a second-rate corporation.''
       A slew of presidential scholars and good-government 
     organizations are spending this year trying to do just that. 
     They have undertaken a series of projects designed to help 
     the new President hit the ground running when he takes office 
     on Jan. 22, 2001:
       Abshire's Center for the Study of the Presidency is working 
     on a special report intended to reach the President-elect on 
     the day after the election. The package will include several 
     case studies illustrating past Presidents' successes and 
     failures in policy-making, and an analysis of ``the art of 
     presidential leadership.''
       The Heritage Foundation is undertaking a project called 
     Mandate for Leadership 2000. Obviously, the conservative 
     Heritage folks are pulling for Republican Gov. George W. Bush 
     over Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Just as obviously, 
     some of the Heritage material, such as a proposed federal 
     spending blueprint, is geared for a GOP President. But 
     Heritage is also in the midst of a bipartisan effort 
     consisting of a series of seminars and publications designed 
     to guide the next Administration. Later this year, Heritage 
     plans to publish what it promises will be a nonpartisan 
     report drawing on the accumulated wisdom of a cast of former 
     White House aides, ranging from former Clinton Chief of Staff 
     Leon E. Panetta to Reagan confidant and Deputy White House 
     Chief of Staff Michael K. Deaver.
       Paul C. Light of the Brookings Institution has launched his 
     Presidential Appointee Initiative with the goal of helping a 
     new President get the best and the brightest Americans into 
     his Administration. This project, funded to the tune of $3.6 
     million for three years by the Pew Charitable Trusts, will 
     propose reforms that streamline and depoliticize 
     the appointment and confirmation process. ``The premise . 
     . . is that effective governance is impossible if the 
     nation's most talented citizens are reluctant to accept 
     the President's call to government service.'' Light says.
       At the American Enterprise Institute, Norman J. Ornstein 
     has teamed with Thomas E. Mann of the Brookings Institution 
     on a wide-ranging three-year mission called Transition to 
     Governing. Also funded by Pew, the $3.35 million project 
     targets the ``permanent campaign,'' which has made stars of 
     political consultants while reducing policy-makers to slaves 
     of the daily tracking polls.
       In the works at AEI are two conferences; a published set of 
     benchmarks by which to judge successful transitions; 
     recommendations for improving the confirmation process; a 
     book on the danger of the permanent campaign; and the 
     publication of transition memos written by Harvard scholar 
     Richard Neustadt for Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton. 
     In addition, AEI intends to supplement Light's work by 
     developing ideas for accelerating the appointment process, 
     which

[[Page S4849]]

     took an average of two months in Kennedy's day but now 
     consumes more than nine months.
       One tool being created is a CD-ROM modeled on TurboTax 
     software that consolidates all of the questions asked on the 
     various government disclosure forms and in FBI background 
     checks. ``The purpose of it is to make it easy for nominees 
     to complete the blizzard of paperwork they have to 
     negotiate,'' says Terry Sullivan, the University of North 
     Carolina political scientist overseeing the project. ``One of 
     the things we know from interviews Paul Light's organization 
     has been conducting with these people is that they find all 
     this paperwork to be odious and repetitious. It discourages 
     some nominees. . . .''
       Finally, there is the White House interview program, the 
     brainchild of Martha Kumar and several of her fellow 
     presidential scholars. Also funded by Pew, but at only 
     $250,000 for three years, it may offer the biggest bang for 
     the buck. Kumar has conducted nearly 75 in-depth interviews 
     with former White House officials from seven key offices, 
     including chief of staff and communications, going back as 
     far as the Nixon Administration. ``The idea of these 
     interviews is to get into the workings of the White House'' 
     Kumar said, ``and to pass along their insights to those who 
     need it--when they need it most.''
       Her interviews will be made available, along with a 15-page 
     analysis on the office in question, to those hired during the 
     transition for positions such as White House chief of staff 
     and press secretary. Next year, they will be turned over to 
     the National Archives.
       The scholars themselves are aware that the reports they are 
     producing will compete with each other and with a thousand 
     other demands on the new appointees' time. For that reason, 
     there has been a good deal of cross-pollination of ideas and 
     cooperation among the scholars, many of whom are being tapped 
     for more than one of these projects. In the process, a loose 
     consensus has formed among them, one that David Abshire puts 
     succinctly: ``The most important decision a President makes 
     is whom he picks to make up that presidency.''

                [From the Washington Post, June 4, 2000]

                       Start Thinking Transition

                          (By David S. Broder)

       If you call the Bush or Gore campaigns, as I did last week 
     and ask if anyone is planning the transition to the 
     presidency, the answer is an astonished ``No!'' It's months 
     until the conventions and the focus is entirely on the fall 
     campaign, they say. First things first. It would be 
     presumptuous to think otherwise.
       But the strongly held view of those who have been through 
     this sequence before is that George W. Bush and Al Gore ought 
     to be thinking about the takeover of government now, and 
     starting to plan the process very soon, well before they know 
     which of them will be successful on Election Day.
       ``Remember you have only 73 days'' from election to 
     inauguration, Theodore C. Sorensen, the counsel in the 
     Kennedy White House, said last week at a conference sponsored 
     by the Heritage Foundation. ``You better begin planning 
     before Election Day.''
       That advice was echoed by veterans of the Johnson, Carter, 
     Reagan and Bush White Houses--and by a trio of scholars who 
     have been plumbing the records of past transitions.
       In fact, such advance planning has been done in many past 
     campaigns--but covertly, to avoid conveying a sense of smug 
     overconfidence to the voters. Jack Watson, who became Jimmy 
     Carter's chief of staff, told the Heritage audience that he 
     had retrieved a memo from the Carter archives he had written 
     the former Georgia governor on May 11, 1976, soon after 
     Carter won the Pennsylvania primary and established himself 
     as the favorite for the nomination. It suggested that as 
     outsiders to Washington, they needed to start organizing 
     themselves soon for the possibility of taking over the 
     executive branch. Carter gave him the go-ahead on May 27--
     just about this point in the cycle--but ordered secrecy.
       Why the need for such a long head start? Mainly because the 
     process of identifying the key officials and getting them in 
     place can be so agonizing. C. Boyden Gray, counsel in the 
     Bush White House, said the president-elect should be ready to 
     give the FBI the names of 100 to 150 people ``immediately 
     after the election,'' so the clearance procedures can begin. 
     ``Do it, even if you don't know what their jobs will be,'' 
     Gray said, ``because there will always be a glitch.''
       Who are those key officials? Richard E. Neustadt, the 
     Harvard professor whose work on the presidency has been a 
     handbook for several administrations, was unequivocal in his 
     answer. ``Choose the White House staff before you pick the 
     Cabinet,'' he said, ``so they can begin to relate to each 
     other in the process of Cabinet selection. Don't do the 
     Cabinet first.''
       President Clinton famously did the opposite and dallied so 
     long in Cabinet-making that he barely got his White House 
     aides named before he moved from Little Rock to Washington. 
     He paid a price; many of those last-minute White House 
     appointees turned out to be ill suited for their jobs and had 
     to be replaced.
       The Reagan transition is considered by scholars the best of 
     recent times. Planning began well before Election Day and was 
     aided by the outgoing administration, said Edwin Meese III, 
     the transition director who later became attorney general. 
     Carter and Watson were so grateful for the help they had 
     received four years before from defeated President Ford, 
     through his top aides Richard Cheney and John O. Marsh, that 
     they went out of their way to help the Reagan people.
       No one can predict how much help the retiring Clintonities 
     will give their successors, though it presumably would be 
     extended automatically to Gore's people. But plenty of 
     guidance will be available to the incoming president from 
     outside government.
       Four think tanks--Heritage, the American Enterprise 
     Institute, the Brookings Institution and the Center for the 
     Study of the Presidency--all have major transition studies 
     underway and will be ready with briefing papers for the 
     winners.
       In addition, the American Political Science Association 
     with a Few Charitable Trusts grant, has a White House 2001 
     project. Martha Kumar, a professor at Towson University, and 
     her colleagues have interviewed 75 officials from the past 
     six White Houses and are building what Kumar calls ``the 
     first institutional memory'' of seven key White House 
     offices, which together make up the nerve center of the 
     presidency.
       They will present the president-elect's team with seven 
     short essays, drawn from the interviews, on ``how the place 
     should work,'' plus something that never before existed--a 
     Rolodex of past officials in those offices and their phone 
     numbers.
       This may sound elementary, but the reality is that when a 
     new president moves in, his top aides find bare desks, empty 
     filing cabinets and disconnected computers. They need help.
       And it will be there, especially if Gore and Bush don't 
     procrastinate in starting their transition planning.

 Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with 
Senators Thompson, Levin, Durbin, Voinovich, Collins and Akaka to 
introduce this legislation, which will help improve the transition from 
one Presidential Administration to the next by providing training and 
other assistance.
  Each newly elected President has the power to bring into government, 
with the advice and consent of the Senate, his or her own selection of 
political appointees to manage key agencies and offices within the 
Executive Branch. However, new administrations face a series of hurdles 
they must overcome to accomplish this essential task before they can 
begin to govern. For example, new administrations often lack critical 
information about the jobs they must fill. Individuals without prior 
government experience who are selected for key positions may be 
unfamiliar with how to work with Congress and the media and may run the 
risk of missteps early in their tenure. But perhaps most importantly, 
the process by which these individuals are nominated and confirmed has 
fallen into increasing disarray in recent years. Knowledgeable 
observers have warned that it could take until November 2001 before all 
the senior members of the new Administration are vetted and confirmed, 
due to factors such as lengthier background checks, burdensome and 
duplicative financial disclosure forms, and a more contentious Senate 
confirmation process.
  The bill we are introducing today is a first step in responding to 
these problems. It provides for training and orientation of high-level 
Presidential appointees, to better prepare them for the challenges of 
their new positions. It provides for the preparation of a ``transition 
directory'' containing essential information about the agency structure 
and responsibilities these new appointees will face. Our bill directs 
the Office of Government Ethics to study ways to streamline the current 
financial disclosure process, while still ensuring disclosure of 
possible conflicts of interest.
  More may need to be done. Several studies are underway to look at how 
we can further improve the transition process, including the 
Presidential Appointee Initiative and the Transition to Governing 
Project. I commend those undertaking these studies and their efforts to 
provide assistance to the upcoming crop of nominees, and I look forward 
to recommendations for future action.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 2706. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to 
establish a program to provide dairy farmers a price safety net for 
small- and medium-sized dairy producers; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


              national dairy farmers fairness act of 2000

 Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation that

[[Page S4850]]

will assist our nation's dairy farmers at a time when the dairy 
industry is facing tremendous difficulty. This legislation proposes a 
regionally equitable plan that will bring some predictability to a 
business that is otherwise challenged by inherent variability that 
accompanies dairy farming.
  I am pleased to have Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin join with me 
today in this effort. Given the importance of the dairy industry to our 
respective states, Senator Kohl and I worked together over the past few 
months to forge a consensus plan that addresses the concerns of dairy 
farmers nationwide. For far too long, regional politics has plagued 
efforts to achieve a fair and equitable national dairy policy. As a 
result, milk pricing has become increasingly complex and overly 
prescriptive. Given that dairy farmers are receiving the lowest price 
for their milk in more than twenty years, I feel strongly that Congress 
needed to step to the plate and offer a fair and responsible solution--
the very reason for this action.
  The National Dairy Farmers Fairness Act has two major goals: 1. 
create a dairy policy that is equitable for farmers in all regions of 
the country; 2. provide more certainty for farmers in the prices they 
receive for their milk. To accomplish these goals, this legislation 
creates a safety net for farmers by providing supplemental assistance 
when milk prices are low. Specifically, a sliding scale payment is made 
based upon the previous year's price for the national average of Class 
III milk. In short, the payment rate to farmers is highest when the 
prices they received were the lowest. In order to be eligible, a farmer 
must have produced milk for commercial sale in the previous year, and 
would be compensated on the first 26,000 hundredweight of production. 
All dairy producers would be eligible to participate under this 
scenario.
  Without a doubt, our dairy pricing policy is flawed. Many solutions--
modest to sweeping--have been proposed, discussed, and debated on the 
Senate floor yet final agreement among interested parties has so far 
eluded us. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee who 
represents the fourth largest dairy producing state in the nation, I am 
committed to preserving the viability of Pennsylvania's dairy farmers. 
This legislative proposal represents the strong concern and interest of 
mine to find a middle ground in the often heated debate on dairy 
policy. I am pleased to join with Senator Kohl in this effort, and I 
believe it sends a strong signal that compromise can be achieved even 
on the most contentious of issues.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today and join my colleague Senator 
Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania to introduce legislation to provide much 
needed assistance to our nation's dairy producers who are facing the 
lowest milk prices in over two decades.
  Due to the failure of the federal order reform process and the 
Administration's failure to include a meaningful dairy price safety net 
in its Fiscal Year 2001 budget, this legislation is an appropriate and 
necessary response to the ongoing regional milk pricing inequities and 
the dairy income crisis affecting all producers. In the past, the 
divisive and controversial dairy compact system has hindered Congress's 
efforts to achieve a fair and equitable national dairy policy. I am 
pleased to join with Senator Santorum to introduce this legislation to 
create a regionally equitable plan will provide a price safety net for 
small and medium sized dairy producers throughout the country.
  The National Dairy Farmers Fairness Act of 2000 has two major goals: 
(1) to create a dairy policy that is equitable for farmers in all 
regions of the country; (2) provide stability for dairy producers in 
the prices they receive for their milk. To accomplish these goals, this 
legislation creates a price safety net for farmers by providing 
supplemental income payments when milk prices are low. A ``sliding-
scale'' payment is made based upon the previous year's price for the 
national average for Class III milk. In essence, the payment rate to 
farmers is highest when the national Class III average is the lowest. 
To participate in this program, a farmer must have produced milk for 
commercial sale in the previous year. Payments under the program are 
also capped for the first 26,000 hundredweight of production. Again, 
all dairy producers would be eligible to participate under this 
scenario.
  The fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill includes $443 
million in emergency direct payments to dairy producers for losses 
incurred this year. While this action is absolutely necessary to 
respond to the current crisis, it is time that an on-going program 
providing supplemental income payments to farmers when milk prices 
decline be established. This important legislation represents a 
bipartisan and national approach in providing predictability and price 
stability in this otherwise volatile industry. Again, I am pleased to 
join with Senator Santorum in introducing this legislation and look 
forward to working with him in passing this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Burns):
  S. 2707. A bill to help ensure general aviation aircraft access to 
Federal land and the airspace over that land; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


                the backcountry landing strip access act

 Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by 
my colleagues, Senator Craig and Senator Burns, to introduce the 
Backcountry Landing Strip Access Act. This bill will preserve our 
nation's backcountry airstrips and require a public review and comment 
period before airstrips are temporarily or permanently closed.
  Idaho is home to more than fifty backcountry airstrips and the state 
is known nationwide for its air access to wilderness and primitive 
areas. In testimony before Congress on the importance of preserving 
backcountry airstrips, Bart Welsh, Aeronautics Administrator for the 
Idaho Department of Transportation, stated that these airstrips are, 
``an irreplaceable state and national treasure.'' Unfortunately, the 
reality today is that many airstrips have been closed or rendered 
unserviceable through neglect by federal agencies responsible for land 
management. Even more troubling is that these closures occur without 
providing the public with a justification for such action or an 
opportunity to comment on them.
  Our bill would address this situation by preventing the Secretary of 
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from permanently closing 
airstrips without first consulting with state aviation agencies and 
users. The legislation would also require that proposed closures would 
be published in the Federal Register with a ninety-day public comment 
period. The bill directs the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of 
Agriculture, after consultation with the FAA, to adopt a nationwide 
policy governing backcountry aviation. Finally, I would be remiss if I 
did not mention that this bill is a result of Congressman Jim Hansen's 
tireless efforts in promoting backcountry aviation access in the other 
body.
  Backcountry airstrips are disappearing and, because of existing 
statutes, they are irreplaceable. When the Frank Church Wilderness Act 
was established in Idaho, it incorporated a provision to provide for 
the continued operation of all existing landing strips. The Act states 
that existing landing strips cannot be closed permanently or rendered 
unserviceable without the written consent of the State of Idaho. This 
has created an effective partnership between personnel from the U.S. 
Forest Service and staff from the Idaho Division of Aeronautics along 
with other interested parties. My bill extends the success of the Frank 
Church Wilderness Act provision nationwide to preserve airstrips in 
Idaho as well as other states.
  I have heard from general aviation users and state aviation officials 
that pilots often discover that an airstrip is closed only when they 
attempt to use it. This represents a grave danger to those who have not 
been made aware of an airstrip's closure. The public process in this 
bill would rectify this problem by ensuring that everyone with an 
interest in backcountry aviation remains informed of a proposed closure 
and is allowed to comment on it.
  Backcountry airstrips are active and essential to citizens who depend 
on wilderness access. These airstrips are utilized by pilots and 
outdoor enthusiasts. In addition, access to the strips ensures a 
fundamental American service--universal postal delivery. Without access 
to backcountry airstrips, citizens who live and work in remote areas 
would not receive their mails.

[[Page S4851]]

  Among the other vital functions of backcountry airstrips is their use 
for firefighting, search and rescue, and especially their availability 
to pilots in emergencies. Backcountry airstrips are analogous to fire 
engines in a firehouse. Although the airstrip may not used daily, it is 
always available in an emergency. Likewise, backcountry airstrips are 
available as a safe haven for public flying in remote mountainous 
areas. Without the airstrips, these pilots would have little chance of 
survival while attempting an emergency landing.
  Let me be clear, the Backcountry Landing Strip Access Act does not 
harm our forests or our wilderness areas, as some might suggest. 
Moreover, backcountry airstrips are regularly used by forest officials 
to maintain forests and trails, conduct ecological management projects, 
and aerial mapping. This bill is simply about access. It does not 
reopen airstrips that have already been closed, nor does it burden 
federal officials with maintenance requirements. In fact, pilots 
themselves regularly maintain backcountry strips.
  The Backcounty Landing Strip Access Act is commonsense legislation 
that allows those who used and benefit from the airstrips to be 
involved in the decision-making process. I have always found that 
decisions on the use of public land are best handled by those who are 
impacted the most, rather than federal bureaucrats in Washington, DC. 
In Idaho, we have evolved into a cooperative relationship with federal 
land managers. It makes sense that the rest of the country should 
benefit from this philosophy of cooperation. One we lose an airstrip it 
is gone forever. I urge my colleagues to join with us in an effort to 
preserve the remaining backcountry airstrips.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S. 2708. A bill to establish a Patients Before Paperwork Medicare Red 
Tape Reduction Commission to study the proliferation of paperwork under 
the medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.


 the patients before paperwork medicare red tape reduction act of 2000

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, Medicare paperwork requirements burden 
America's seniors, health care providers, and federal government staff 
that manage Medicare.
  In 1998, the average processing time for appeals of claims denied 
under Medicare Part A was 310 days. For Medicare Part B, the average 
appeal time was 524 days. Waiting periods of a year or longer are too 
long for America's seniors to wait. These lengthy waiting periods tell 
me that there must be room for us to improve the way we administer 
Medicare.
  HCFA regulations governing Medicare consist of 110,000 pages--six 
times as long as the Tax Code, which is 17,000 pages. In addition, HCFA 
uses 23 different forms to administer the Medicare program.
  According to Dr. Nancy Dickey, Immediate Past President of the 
American Medical Association, for most doctors, ``the biggest challenge 
is getting through mountains of Medicare paperwork.''
  Let me give you some examples of how paperwork burdens and related 
regulations are affecting the Medicare program. Recently Dr. Joseph 
Marshall, a Washington, DC., gynecologist, became so frustrated with 
HCFA regulations that he chose to give his Medicare patients free 
visits, so that he would avoid sending a bill to Medicare. HCFA would 
not allow it. HCFA told him that if he did not bill HCFA, he could be 
fined and imprisoned.
  A nonprofit Minnesota organization, Allina, which serves 35,000 
seniors, expects to spend $2 million annually in paperwork related 
burdens. And Medicare paperwork burdens have forced increasing numbers 
of seniors to resort to ``insurance claim service'' firms to help them 
complete Medicare paperwork. These firms charge $20 to $75 an hour.
  This is not the tax code I am referring to. This is Medicare, the 
program that is supposed to bring health care to elderly Americans, not 
bury them and their doctors under mountains of paperwork.
  During the Clinton Administration, more than a quarter of the 110,000 
pages of Medicare regulations and paperwork have been added. In April 
of last year, HCFA proposed 93 new regulations based on the Balanced 
Budget Act alone.
  Mr. President, drowning doctors and patients alike in a morass of 
paperwork must end. The seniors who have been promised Medicare 
coverage throughout their working lives deserve the best possible 
coverage. The doctors who treat them deserve our gratitude, not 
bureaucratic burdens and indifference.
  Therefore, today I am introducing the ``Patients Before Paperwork 
Medicare Red Tape Reduction Act of 2000.'' This legislation would 
establish a Commission to examine inefficient and superfluous Medicare 
paperwork requirements and related regulations. The Commission will 
include physicians, hospital administrators, senior citizens, nursing 
home and long term care administrators, and health care plan 
representatives, the very people best able to determine which forms are 
necessary to ensure quality coverage, and which forms create unfair 
burdens and time-wasting mandates from Washington.
  The Commission will be responsible for reviewing existing paperwork 
burdens, with the goal of reducing those burdens. It will streamline 
and simplify the coding method for Medicare services, facilitate 
electronic filing and the elimination of paperwork, and demonstrate 
that existing and proposed paperwork requirements and related 
regulations have proven benefits, including a positive health benefit 
for consumers.
  The Commission will also explore the important issue of how patient-
doctor relationships have been impacted by onerous paperwork 
requirements that force doctors to spend more time examining forms than 
examining patients.
  This legislation would alleviate the burden that Medicare paperwork 
imposes on millions of Medicare beneficiaries, health care providers, 
and our own federal government. By establishing this Commission, we 
would create the opportunity to decrease Medicare paperwork burdens on 
seniors and promote efficiency within the health care industry and 
within the federal government.
  Mr. President, 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:
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2708

       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 ``Patients Before Paperwork 
     Medicare Red Tape Reduction Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Regulations promulgated by the Health Care Financing 
     Administration to administer the medicare program under title 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act are 3 times as long as the 
     regulations relating to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (2) During the Administration of President Clinton, more 
     than a quarter of the 110,000 pages of medicare regulations 
     and paperwork have been added.
       (3) According to American Medical Association Immediate 
     Past President Dr. Nancy W. Dickey, for most doctors, ``the 
     biggest challenge is getting through mountains of medicare 
     paperwork''.
       (4) According to the Wall Street Journal, Allina, a 
     nonprofit Minnesota organization serving 35,000 medicare 
     beneficiaries, expects to spend $2,000,000 annually in 
     paperwork-related burdens.
       (5) Medicare paperwork burdens have forced increasing 
     numbers of medicare beneficiaries to resort to the use of 
     ``insurance claim service'' firms that charge from $20 to $75 
     an hour.
       (6) The Health Care Financing Administration uses 23 
     different forms in the administration of the medicare 
     program.
       (7) In 1998, the average processing time for appeals of 
     claims denied under part A of the medicare program was 310 
     days and the average appeal time was 524 days under part B of 
     such program.

     SEC. 3. PATIENTS BEFORE PAPERWORK MEDICARE RED TAPE REDUCTION 
                   COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the Patients Before Paperwork Medicare Red Tape 
     Reduction Commission (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Commission'').
       (b) Duties of the Commission.--The Commission shall--
       (1) review existing paperwork burdens and related 
     regulations under the medicare program under title XVIII of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.), with the 
     goal

[[Page S4852]]

     of reducing the paperwork burdens under such program;
       (2) analyze whether existing and proposed paperwork 
     requirements and related regulations have proven benefits, 
     including a positive health benefit for medicare 
     beneficiaries;
       (3) make recommendations regarding methods to streamline 
     and to simplify the coding method for items and services for 
     which reimbursement is provided under the medicare program;
       (4) make recommendations regarding the facilitation of 
     electronic filing of claims for reimbursement and the 
     elimination of paperwork under the medicare program;
       (5) develop a standard form that will minimize any 
     duplication of data and that facilitates the creation of an 
     electronic system that relies on less paperwork than the 
     current system;
       (6) determine the effect of the paperwork requirements 
     under the medicare program on relationships between doctors 
     and patients; and
       (7) review and analyze such other matters relating to 
     paperwork reduction under the medicare program as the 
     Commission deems appropriate.
       (c) Membership.--
       (1) Number and appointment.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Commission shall be composed of 11 members, of whom--
       (i) 3 shall be appointed by the President, of whom not more 
     than 2 shall be of the same political party;
       (ii) 3 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate, in consultation with the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate, of whom not more than 2 shall be of the same 
     political party;
       (iii) 3 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, in consultation with the Minority Leader of 
     the House of Representatives, of whom not more than 2 shall 
     be of the same political party;
       (iv) 1, who shall serve as Chairperson of the Commission, 
     appointed jointly by the President, Majority Leader of the 
     Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and
       (v) 1, who shall be the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services or the Administrator of the Health Care Financing 
     Administration, as determined by the President.
       (B) Membership.--
       (i) In general.--Each member appointed under this 
     paragraph, except for the member described in subparagraph 
     (A)(v), shall be--

       (I) a health care provider, insurer, or expert familiar 
     with the medicare program; or
       (II) a medicare beneficiary.

       (ii) Inclusion of practicing physicians.--At least 1 member 
     appointed under this paragraph shall be a practicing 
     physician.
       (2) Deadline for appointment.--Members of the Commission 
     shall be appointed by not later than August 1, 2000.
       (3) Terms of appointment.--The term of any appointment 
     under paragraph (1) to the Commission shall be for the life 
     of the Commission.
       (4) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of its 
     Chairperson or a majority of its members.
       (5) Quorum.--A quorum shall consist of a majority of the 
     members of the Commission, except that 3 members may conduct 
     a hearing under subsection (e)(1).
       (6) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission shall be filled 
     in the same manner in which the original appointment was made 
     not later than 30 days after the Commission is given notice 
     of the vacancy and shall not affect the power of the 
     remaining members to execute the duties of the Commission.
       (7) Compensation.--Members of the Commission shall receive 
     no additional pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of their 
     service on the Commission.
       (8) Expenses.--Each member of the Commission shall receive 
     travel expenses and per diem in lieu of subsistence in 
     accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (d) Staff and Support Services.--
       (1) Executive director.--
       (A) Appointment.--The Chairperson shall appoint an 
     executive director of the Commission.
       (B) Compensation.--The executive director shall be paid the 
     rate of basic pay for level V of the Executive Schedule.
       (2) Staff.--With the approval of the Commission, the 
     executive director may appoint such personnel as the 
     executive director considers appropriate.
       (3) Applicability of civil service laws.--The staff of the 
     Commission shall be appointed without regard to the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
     appointments in the competitive service, and shall be paid 
     without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 
     III of chapter 53 of such title (relating to classification 
     and General Schedule pay rates).
       (4) Experts and consultants.--With the approval of the 
     Commission, the executive director may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (5) Physical facilities.--The Administrator of General 
     Services shall locate suitable office space for the operation 
     of the Commission. The facilities shall serve as the 
     headquarters of the Commission and shall include all 
     necessary equipment and incidentals required for the proper 
     functioning of the Commission.
       (e) Powers of Commission.--
       (1) Hearings and other activities.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out its duties, the Commission may hold such 
     hearings and undertake such other activities as the 
     Commission determines to be necessary to carry out its 
     duties.
       (2) Studies by gao.--Upon the request of the Commission, 
     the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct 
     such studies or investigations as the Commission determines 
     to be necessary to carry out its duties.
       (3) Cost estimates by congressional budget office and 
     office of the chief actuary of hcfa.--
       (A) The Director of the Congressional Budget Office or the 
     Chief Actuary of the Health Care Financing Administration 
     shall provide to the Commission, upon the request of the 
     Commission, such cost estimates as the Commission determines 
     to be necessary to carry out its duties.
       (B) The Commission shall reimburse the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office for expenses relating to the 
     employment in the office of the Director of such additional 
     staff as may be necessary for the Director to comply with 
     requests by the Commission under subparagraph (A).
       (4) Detail of federal employees.--Upon the request of the 
     Commission, the head of any Federal agency is authorized to 
     detail, without reimbursement, any of the personnel of such 
     agency to the Commission to assist the Commission in carrying 
     out its duties. Any such detail shall not interrupt or 
     otherwise affect the civil service status or privileges of 
     the Federal employee.
       (5) Technical assistance.--Upon the request of the 
     Commission, the head of a Federal agency shall provide such 
     technical assistance to the Commission as the Commission 
     determines to be necessary to carry out its duties.
       (6) Use of mails.--The Commission may use the United States 
     mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as 
     Federal agencies and shall, for purposes of the frank, be 
     considered a commission of Congress as described in section 
     3215 of title 39, United States Code.
       (7) Obtaining information.--The Commission may secure 
     directly from any Federal agency information necessary to 
     enable it to carry out its duties, if the information may be 
     disclosed under section 552 of title 5, United States Code. 
     Upon request of the Chairperson of the Commission, the head 
     of such agency shall furnish such information to the 
     Commission.
       (8) Administrative support services.--Upon the request of 
     the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall 
     provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis such 
     administrative support services as the Commission may 
     request.
       (9) Printing.--For purposes of costs relating to printing 
     and binding, including the cost of personnel detailed from 
     the Government Printing Office, the Commission shall be 
     deemed to be a committee of Congress.
       (f) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on which 
     the final member of the Commission is appointed under 
     subsection (c), the Commission shall submit a report to the 
     President and Congress which shall contain a detailed 
     statement of only those recommendations, findings, and 
     conclusions of the Commission that receive the approval of at 
     least a majority of the members of the Commission.
       (g) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate 30 days 
     after the date of submission of the report required under 
     subsection (f).
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $500,000 to carry out this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Dorgan, 
        Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Kerrey):
  S. 2709. To establish a Beef Industry Compensation Trust Fund with 
the duties imposed on products of countries that fail to comply with 
certain WTO dispute resolution decisions; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                     trade injury compensation act

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Trade 
Injury Compensation Act of 2000. I am joined in this effort by Senator 
Bond, my fellow co-chairman of the Senate Beef Caucus, and Senators 
Bingaman, Dorgan, Daschle, and Kerrey.
  The Trade Injury Compensation Act establishes a Beef Industry 
Compensation Trust Fund to help the United States cattle industry 
withstand the European Union's illegal ban on beef treated with 
hormones.
  Over a year ago, the World Trade Organization endorsed retaliation 
when the EU refused to open to American beef. Since that time, the EU 
has continued to stall in its compliance which is frankly, outrageous. 
For over a decade we've fought the beef battle. Now its time to try 
something new to help producers who continue to be injured by the ban.
  The Trade Injury Compensation Act establishes a mechanism for using 
the tariffs imposed on the EU to directly aid U.S. beef producers. 
Normally, the additional tariff revenues received from retaliation go 
to the Treasury.

[[Page S4853]]

 This bill establishes a trust fund so that the affected industry will 
receive those revenues as compensation for its injury.
  Our legislation authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide 
grants to a nationally recognized beef promotion and research board for 
the education and market promotion of the United States beef industry. 
In particular, the fund shall:
  (1) Provide assistance to United States beef producers to improve the 
quality of beef produced in the United States; and
  (2) Provide assistance to United States beef producers in market 
development, consumer education, and promotion of the beef industry in 
overseas markets.
  The Secretary of the Treasury shall cease the transfer of funds 
equivalent to the duties on the beef retaliation list only when the 
European Union complies with the World Trade Organization ruling 
allowing United States beef producers access to the European market.
  In a perfect world we would not need this legislation because the 
European Union would abide by its international trade commitments. And 
it is still my hope that the European Union simply comply with the WTO 
Dispute Settlement rulings and allow our beef to enter its borders.
  Mr. President, the WTO is a critically important institution that 
sets the foundation and framework to make world trade grow. We all 
recognize that it needs improvement, and I, along with many of my 
colleagues, are working on ways to fix it. We must bring credibility 
and compliance to the system. The Trade Injury Compensation Act will 
give some relief to our producers as we strive toward this endeavor.
  I thank my colleagues for their sponsorship of this measure and 
strongly urge support for its expeditious passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
        Abraham, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Graham, Mr. Dodd, 
        and Mr. Feingold):
  S.J. Res. 48. A joint resolution calling upon the President to issue 
a proclamation recognizing the 25th anniversary of the Helsinki Final 
Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


           the helsinki final act 25th anniversary resolution

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President. Today in my capacity as Co-Chairman of 
the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I introduce a 
resolution commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Helsinki Final 
Act, one of the key international agreements of our time. I am pleased 
to be joined by all Senate Commissioners, Senators Hutchison, 
Lautenberg, Abraham, Brownback, Hutchinson, Graham, Dodd, and Feingold, 
who are original cosponsors. A companion resolution also is being 
introduced today in the House by our colleague, Congressman Chris Smith 
of New Jersey, who chairs the Helsinki Commission.
  Five years ago, during the 20th anniversary celebrations in Helsinki, 
President Gerald Ford said: ``The Helsinki Accords, the Final Act, was 
the final nail in the coffin of Marxism and communism in many, many 
countries, and helped to bring about the change to a more democratic 
political system and a change to a more market-oriented economic 
system.'' Indeed, the Helsinki Final Act, signed by President Ford in 
1975, marked the beginning of a process which has served U.S. interests 
in advancing democracy, human rights and the rule of law within a 
comprehensive framework covering the security, economic and human 
dimensions.
  The legacy of Helsinki is especially historic with respect to what is 
now referred to as the ``human dimension.'' The Helsinki process--now 
named the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), 
is rightly credited with playing a contributing role in bringing down 
the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain, and, in 1991, the Soviet Union. In 
short, the Helsinki process helped make it possible for the people of 
Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to regain their 
freedom and independence.
  Both Western governments and private individuals increasingly cited 
the Final Act, adopted by consensus, as a yardstick for measuring human 
rights performance, citing commitments which the violating governments 
freely undertook.
  Human rights groups, including the Helsinki Monitoring Groups in 
Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia, Armenia, as well as in 
Czechoslovakia and Poland grounded their activities in the Helsinki 
principles. During the communist era, members of these groups often 
sacrificed their personal freedom and in some instances their lives for 
their courageous and vocal support for the principles enshrined in the 
Helsinki Final Act. The pressure of governmental efforts and public 
opinion in both East and West contributed greatly to change in the 
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
  Responding to a dramatically changed, post-Cold War world, the OSCE 
has evolved into a useful institutional tool for addressing many of the 
challenges confronting Europe and the Euro-Atlantic community today. 
The OSCE is the one political organization that unites all the 
countries of Europe, including all of the former Soviet republics, the 
United States and Canada, to face today's challenges. One of the 
primary strengths of the Helsinki process is its comprehensive nature 
and membership, where current human rights, military security, and 
trade and economic issues can be pursued.
  The OSCE, now expanded to 55 from the original 35 countries, has been 
working hard to minimize conflict and bring all sides together, 
especially in the last decade which has seen several horrible regional 
conflicts, including in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya.
  The OSCE has played an increasingly active role in civilian police-
related activities, including training, as an integral part of the 
Organization's efforts in conflict prevention, crisis management and 
post-conflict rehabilitation. It has also played an important role in 
promoting greater transparency through the adoption and implementation 
of various confidence and security-building measures designed to reduce 
the risk of conflict in Europe. Other challenges that the OSCE is 
increasingly addressing include the promotion of economic reforms 
through enhanced transparency for market economic activity, 
environmental responsibility, the importance of the rule of law and 
fighting organized crime and corruption. And, of course, human rights 
remains very much on the OSCE's agenda, including but not limited to, 
the eradication of torture, free media, respect for the rights of 
individuals belonging to national minorities, and ending discrimination 
against Roma and Sinti. Unfortunately, serious human rights abuses 
continue in all too many OSCE countries. The main challenge facing the 
participating States of the OSCE remains the implementation of the 
commitments contained in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE 
documents. The Helsinki Commission, which I co-chair, will continue to 
work in accordance with our mandate to monitor and encourage compliance 
by all the signatory States with their Helsinki commitments.
  Mr. President, this resolution commemorates the 25th anniversary of 
the signing of the Helsinki Final Act and authorizes the President to 
issue a proclamation reasserting America's commitment to full 
implementation of the Helsinki Final Act, and request that he convey to 
all signatories that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, 
and democratic principles as well as economic liberty and the 
implementation of related commitments continue to be vital elements in 
promoting a new era of democracy, peace and unity in the OSCE region.
  Twenty-five years after the signing of the Helsinki Final Act, the 
principles enshrined in that historic document remain valid and 
continue to serve as an important tool in advancing U.S. interests in a 
region stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be printed 
in the Record following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 48

       Whereas August 1, 2000, is the 25th anniversary of the 
     Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in 
     Europe (CSCE),

[[Page S4854]]

     renamed the Organization for Security and Cooperation in 
     Europe (OSCE) in January 1995 (in this joint resolution 
     referred to as the ``Helsinki Final Act'');
       Whereas the Helsinki Final Act, for the first time in the 
     history of international agreements, accorded human rights 
     the status of a fundamental principle in regulating 
     international relations;
       Whereas during the Communist era, members of 
     nongovernmental organizations, such as the Helsinki 
     Monitoring Groups in Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia, and 
     Armenia and similar groups in Czechoslovakia and Poland, 
     sacrificed their personal freedom and even their lives in 
     their courageous and vocal support for the principles 
     enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act;
       Whereas the United States Congress contributed to advancing 
     the aims of the Helsinki Final Act by creating the Commission 
     on Security and Cooperation in Europe to monitor and 
     encourage compliance with provisions of the Helsinki Final 
     Act;
       Whereas in the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe, the 
     participating states declared, ``Human rights and fundamental 
     freedoms are the birthright of all human beings, are 
     inalienable and are guaranteed by law. Their protection and 
     promotion is the first responsibility of government'';
       Whereas in the 1991 Document of the Moscow Meeting of the 
     Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, the 
     participating states ``categorically and irrevocably 
     declare[d] that the commitments undertaken in the field of 
     the human dimension of the CSCE are matters of direct and 
     legitimate concern to all participating States and do not 
     belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the State 
     concerned'';
       Whereas in the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe, the 
     participating states committed themselves ``to build, 
     consolidate and strengthen democracy as the only system of 
     government of our nations'';
       Whereas the 1999 Istanbul Charter for European Security and 
     Istanbul Summit Declaration note the particular challenges of 
     ending violence against women and children as well as sexual 
     exploitation and all forms of trafficking in human beings, 
     strengthening efforts to combat corruption, eradicating 
     torture, reinforcing efforts to end discrimination against 
     Roma and Sinti, and promoting democracy and respect for human 
     rights in Serbia;
       Whereas the main challenge facing the participating states 
     remains the implementation of the principles and commitments 
     contained in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents 
     adopted on the basis of consensus;
       Whereas the participating states have recognized that 
     economic liberty, social justice, and environmental 
     responsibility are indispensable for prosperity;
       Whereas the participating states have committed themselves 
     to promote economic reforms through enhanced transparency for 
     economic activity with the aim of advancing the principles of 
     market economies;
       Whereas the participating states have stressed the 
     importance of respect for the rule of law and of vigorous 
     efforts to fight organized crime and corruption, which 
     constitute a great threat to economic reform and prosperity;
       Whereas OSCE has expanded the scope and substance of its 
     efforts, undertaking a variety of preventive diplomacy 
     initiatives designed to prevent, manage, and resolve conflict 
     within and among the participating states;
       Whereas the politico-military aspects of security remain 
     vital to the interests of the participating states and 
     constitute a core element of OSCE's concept of comprehensive 
     security;
       Whereas the OSCE has played an increasingly active role in 
     civilian police-related activities, including training, as an 
     integral part of OSCE's efforts in conflict prevention, 
     crisis management, and post-conflict rehabilitation; and
       Whereas the participating states bear primary 
     responsibility for raising violations of the Helsinki Final 
     Act and other OSCE documents: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     calls upon the President to--
       (1) issue a proclamation--
       (A) recognizing the 25th anniversary of the signing of the 
     Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in 
     Europe;
       (B) reasserting the commitment of the United States to full 
     implementation of the Helsinki Final Act;
       (C) urging all signatory states to abide by their 
     obligations under the Helsinki Final Act; and
       (D) encouraging the people of the United States to join the 
     President and the Congress in observance of this anniversary 
     with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities; and
       (2) convey to all signatory states of the Helsinki Final 
     Act that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, 
     democratic principles, economic liberty, and the 
     implementation of related commitments continue to be vital 
     elements in promoting a new era of democracy, peace, and 
     unity in the region covered by the Organization for Security 
     and Cooperation in Europe.

                          ____________________