[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.
____________________