[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 132 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10801-S10807]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      Mr. DeWINE:
  S. 3220. A bill to amend sections 3 and 5 of the National Child 
Protection Act of 1993, relating to national criminal history 
background checks of providers of care to children, elderly persons, 
and persons with disabilities; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


           national child protection improvement act of 2000

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Child 
Protection Act Improvement Act of 2000. This bill would amend the 
National Child Protection act, as amended by the Volunteers for 
Children Act. It is designed to facilitate the gathering of criminal 
history record information from both state and federal repositories for 
background checks of employees and volunteers for organizations 
providing services to children, the elderly, and the disabled.
  Despite the best efforts of the law enforcement community and the 
volunteer and child services community, many of the individuals who 
volunteer and are employed in these critical positions still are not 
subject to criminal history background checks. The bill that I am 
introducing today modified the National Child Protection Act to 
facilitate these background checks. Under my bill, with the consent of 
the individual, the organization with which the individual is applying 
would receive a copy of the full criminal history record, including 
relevant arrest information. Further, the bill includes an 
authorization to provide assistance to these volunteer and service 
organizations in offsetting the cost of these background checks. To 
help protect the privacy of individuals who volunteer and are employed 
in these positions, the bill also would provide a number of important 
privacy protections.
  we need to be sure that we do everything possible to facilitate these 
important background checks, while assuring that these background 
checks are not so costly that volunteer organizations and their 
volunteers are deterred from initiating these vital safety checks.
  In shaping this bill, I have worked closely with law enforcement, 
state officials, and other interested parties. Because of that, the 
legislation that I am introducing today would help accomplish the 
laudable goals of the national Child Protection Act and the

[[Page S10802]]

Volunteers for Children Act--which are to facilitate national 
background checks initiated in states which have not adopted 
authorizing language, and, at the same time, assure that those checks 
are processed effectively and quickly. We need to give states the 
flexibility they need to accomplish those goals.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. EDWARDS:
  S. 3221. A bill to provide grants to law enforcement agencies that 
ensure that law enforcement officers employed by such agencies are 
afforded due process when involved in a case that may lead to 
dismissal, demotion, suspension, or transfer; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


          the law enforcement officers due process act of 2000

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Law 
Enforcement Officers Due Process Act of 2000. Every day our Nation's 
police officers put their lives on the line in the fight against crime. 
Every time they patrol a beat they put their own safety at risk to 
protect our children and make our country a better place to live and 
work. We all owe a great deal to these brave men and women.
  Working police officers spend their lives among the public 
safeguarding the innocent and apprehending those who have committed 
crimes. Much of this contact can be stressful for everyone involved. 
Perhaps an individual has been stopped by an officer for the suspected 
violation of a law. Or maybe the officer is assisting someone who is 
the victim of a crime. Due to the circumstances, these are often 
unpleasant situations. And unfortunately, in some instances, contact 
with the police officer may become adversarial and generate complaints 
about the officer's actions.
  These complaints range from accusations that an officer took too long 
to arrive at a crime scene, used too much force, or was not forceful 
enough, to claims that the officer was rude or didn't show proper 
respect. Some complaints against officers are legitimate. However, some 
complaints are generated to intimidate an officer who is simply doing 
his or her job, into dropping charges. Any one of these complaints can 
get an officer fired, suspended, or otherwise punished without the 
benefit of due process.
  A patchwork of state and local laws currently governs the rights of 
officers when they are involved in a case that may lead to dismissal, 
demotion, suspension or transfer. Thirty-five states have state and/or 
local laws in place that govern the administrative due process rights 
of law enforcement officers. However, 15 states do not have any of 
these much-deserved due process protections for their law enforcement 
officers.
  The Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act is a common-sense 
measure designed to replace arbitrary and ad hoc investigatory 
procedures with consistent standards. The legislation will provide 
additional funding to law enforcement agencies that either have in 
place, or currently do not have but certify they will implement, 
administrative due process for their law enforcement officers. An 
agency will be eligible for grant money if its administrative 
procedures include the right of a law enforcement officer under 
investigation to: (1) a hearing before a fair and impartial board or 
hearing officer; (2) be represented by an attorney or other officer at 
the expense of the officer under investigation; (3) confront any 
witness testifying against him or her; and (4) record all meetings he 
or she attends. In many instances, an employer with direct control over 
an officer is also the investigator. That is why providing basic, 
explicitly stated rights to officers under investigation is crucial to 
maintaining impartial investigations. These rights will not interfere 
with the management of state and local internal investigations. They 
will merely ensure that officers receive the benefit of fair and 
objective investigations, whether a complaint against them is 
legitimate or not.
  Some individuals may be concerned that providing these rights would 
delay removal of an officer who is ultimately found to have deserved 
disciplinary action taken against them. However, I'd like to emphasize 
that my legislation would not prevent the immediate suspension of an 
officer whose continued presence on the job is considered to be a 
substantial and immediate threat to the welfare of the law enforcement 
agency or the public; who refuses to obey a direct order issued in 
conformance with the agency's rules and regulations; or who is accused 
of committing an illegal act.
  The Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act does not force a law 
enforcement agency to implement due process rights for its officers. 
Rather, it encourages agencies to do the right thing by offering them 
additional funds if they establish written procedures for determining 
if a complaint is valid or merely designed to cause trouble for the 
officer.
  I urge my colleagues who represent states that do not have law 
enforcement officers' due process rights laws to cosponsor my bill and 
give their police officers the protections they deserve. I also urge my 
colleagues who represent states that have various local laws in place 
to cosponsor my bill. By doing so they will help eliminate the 
disparity that exists among local jurisdictions, and guarantee that 
every single officer in their state will have a minimum baseline of 
rights to help guarantee fair and impartial investigations.
  Crime rates are down across the Nation. We owe a tremendous debt of 
gratitude to our Nation's police officers for helping make this happen. 
Our communities, our schools, and our places of business would not 
enjoy the level of security they have today without the efforts of law 
enforcement. Enacting the Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act is 
the least we can do to show officers that we will fight for all of them 
just like they fight for all of us every day.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Law Enforcement Officers Due Process 
Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3221

       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 ``Law Enforcement Officers Due 
     Process Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. PROTECTION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       (a) Program Authorized.--The Attorney General is authorized 
     to provide grants to law enforcement agencies that are 
     eligible under subsection (b).
       (b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a law enforcement agency shall--
       (1) have in effect an administrative process that complies 
     with the requirements of subsection (c) or an existing 
     procedure described in subsection (e); or
       (2) certify that it will establish, not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, an administrative 
     process that complies with the requirements of subsection 
     (c).
       (c) Officer Rights.--The administrative process referred to 
     in subsection (b) shall require that a law enforcement agency 
     that investigates a law enforcement officer for matters which 
     could reasonably lead to disciplinary action against such 
     officer, including dismissal, demotion, suspension, or 
     transfer provide recourse for the officer that, at a minimum, 
     includes the following:
       (1) Access to administrative process.--The agency has 
     written procedures to ensure that any law enforcement officer 
     is afforded access to any existing administrative process 
     established by the employing agency prior to the imposition 
     of any such disciplinary action against the officer.
       (2) Specific procedures.--The procedures used under 
     paragraph (1) include, the right of a law enforcement officer 
     under investigation--
       (A) to a hearing before a fair and impartial board or 
     hearing officer;
       (B) to be represented by an attorney or other officer at 
     the expense of such officer;
       (C) to confront any witness testifying against such 
     officer; and
       (D) to record all meetings in which such officer attends.
       (d) Immediate Suspension.--Nothing in this section shall 
     prevent the immediate suspension with pay of a law 
     enforcement officer--
       (1) whose continued presence on the job is considered to be 
     a substantial and immediate threat to the welfare of the law 
     enforcement agency or the public;
       (2) who refuses to obey a direct order issued in 
     conformance with the agency's written and disseminated rules 
     and regulations; or
       (3) who is accused of committing an illegal act.
       (e) Existing Procedures.--The provisions of this section 
     shall not apply to a law enforcement agency if the Attorney 
     General determines that such agency has in effect an 
     established civil service system, agency review board, 
     grievance procedure or personnel

[[Page S10803]]

     board, which meets or exceeds the minimum standards of 
     subsection (c).
       (f) Distribution of Funds.--From the amount made available 
     to carry out this section, the Attorney General shall 
     allocate--
       (1) 50 percent for law enforcement agencies that are 
     eligible under paragraph (1) of subsection (b); and
       (2) 50 percent for law enforcement agencies that are 
     eligible under paragraph (2) of subsection (b).
       (g) Regulations.--The Attorney General may prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section.
       (h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``law enforcement agency'' means any State or 
     unit of local government within the State that employs law 
     enforcement officers; and
       (2) the term ``law enforcement officer'' means an officer 
     with the powers of arrest as defined by the laws of each 
     State and required to be certified under the laws of such 
     State.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2001 and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
        Crapo, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
  S. 3222. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to establish 
a program to provide assistance through States to eligible weed 
management entities to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on 
public and private land; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


              harmful non-native weed control act of 2000

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Daschle to 
introduce the Harmful Non-native Weed Control Act of 2000--to provide 
assistance to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate 
harmful, non-native weeds on public and private land. I am pleased that 
Senators Baucus, Burns, Crapo, Johnson, and Gordon Smith, are joining 
us as original cosponsors.
  Currently, noxious weeds are a dangerous threat to the viability of 
both public and private lands across the country. Over a century ago, a 
wave of noxious weeds entered North America from Europe and Asia. 
Unlike native species, which have natural predators and control 
mechanisms, these weeds lack native insects, fungi, or diseases to 
control their growth and takeover of native plants.
  Noxious weeds are estimated to spread at the rate of 4,600 acres per 
day on federal lands alone in the Western United States. Idaho's own 
rush skeltonweed has increased from a few plants in 1954 to roughly 4 
million acres today. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each 
year by Western states to prevent and stop the growth of noxious weeds.
  These nonnative weeds threaten fully two-thirds of all endangered 
species and are now considered by some experts to be the second most 
important threat to biodiversity. In some areas, spotted knapweed grows 
so thick that big game like deer will move out of the area to find 
edible plants. Noxious weeds also increase soil erosion, and prevent 
recreationists from accessing land that is infested with poisonous 
plants. Bikers are often met with a formidable foe when 2-inch-long 
thorns pop their tires on bike paths overrun with puncture vine that 
can pierce all but the most rugged materials.
  In response to this environmental crisis, I have worked with the 
National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Public Lands Council, and the 
Nature Conservancy to develop the Harmful Non-Native Weed Control Act 
of 2000. This legislature will provide a mechanism to get funding to 
the local level where weeds can be fought in a collaborative way. 
Working together is what this entire initiative is about.
  Specifically, this bill establishes, in the Office of the Secretary 
of the Interior, a program to provide assistance through States to 
eligible weed management entities. The Secretary of the Interior 
appoints an Advisory Committee of ten individuals to make 
recommendations to the Secretary regarding the annual allocation of 
funds. The Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, will 
allocate funds to States to provide funding to eligible weed management 
entities to carry out projects approved by States to control or 
eradicate harmful, non-native weeds on public and private lands. Funds 
will be allocated based on several factors, including but not limited 
to: the seriousness of the problem in the State; the extent to which 
the Federal funds will be used to leverage non-Federal funds to address 
the problem; and the extent to which the State has already made 
progress in addressing the problems.
  The bill directs that the States use 25 percent of their allocation 
to make base payments and 75 percent for financial awards to eligible 
weed management entities for carrying out projects relating to the 
control or eradication of harmful, non-native weeds on public or 
private lands. To be eligible to obtain a base payment a weed 
management entity must be established by local stakeholders for weed 
management or public education purposes, provide the State a 
description of their purpose and proposed projects, and fulfill any 
other requirements set by the State. Weed management entities are also 
eligible for financial awards which are funds awarded by the State on a 
competitive basis to carry out projects which cannot be funded within 
the base payment. Projects will be evaluated, giving equal 
consideration to economic and natural values, and selected for funding 
based on factors such as the seriousness of the problem, the likelihood 
that the project will address the problem, and how comprehensive the 
project's approach is to the harmful, non-native weed problem within 
the State. A 50 percent non-Federal match is required to receive the 
funds.

  The Department of Agriculture in Idaho (ISDA) has developed a 
Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious Weeds through a collaborative 
effort involving private landowners, State and Federal land managers, 
State and local governmental entities, and other interested parties. 
Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs) are the centerpiece of the 
strategic plan. CWMAs cross jurisdictional boundaries to bring together 
all landowners, land managers, and interested parties to identify and 
prioritize noxious weed strategies within the CWMA in a collaborative 
manner. The primary responsibilities of the ISDA are to provide 
coordination, administrative support, facilitation, and project cost-
share funding for this collaborative effort. Idaho already has a record 
of working in a collaborative way on this issue--my legislation will 
heighten the progress we've had, and establish the same formula for 
success in other States.
  We are introducing this legislation today to get the discussion 
started. We hope to refine the bill over the winter and introduce an 
improved bill next year. Constructive suggestions are welcome and we 
look forward to working with other Members of Congress to get this bill 
passed next year. Noxious weeds are not only a problem for farmers and 
ranchers, but a hazard to our environment, economy, and communities in 
Idaho and the West. The Harmful Nonnative Weeds Act of 2000 is an 
important step to ensure we are diligent in stopping the spread of 
these weeds. I am confident that if we work together at all levels of 
government and throughout our communities, we can protect our land, 
livelihood, and environment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3222

       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 ``Harmful Nonnative Weed 
     Control Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) public and private land in the United States faces 
     unprecedented and severe stress from harmful, nonnative 
     weeds;
       (2) the economic and resource value of the land is being 
     destroyed as harmful nonnative weeds overtake native 
     vegetation, making the land unusable for forage and for 
     diverse plant and animal communities;
       (3) damage caused by harmful nonnative weeds has been 
     estimated to run in the hundreds of millions of dollars 
     annually;
       (4) successfully fighting this scourge will require 
     coordinated action by all affected stakeholders, including 
     Federal, State, and local governments, private landowners, 
     and nongovernmental organizations;
       (5) the fight must begin at the local level, since it is at 
     the local level that persons feel the loss caused by harmful 
     nonnative weeds and will therefore have the greatest 
     motivation to take effective action; and

[[Page S10804]]

       (6) to date, effective action has been hampered by 
     inadequate funding at all levels of government and by 
     inadequate coordination.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to provide assistance to eligible weed management 
     entities in carrying out projects to control or eradicate 
     harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private land;
       (2) to coordinate the projects with existing weed 
     management areas and districts;
       (3) in locations in which no weed management entity, area, 
     or district exists, to stimulate the formation of additional 
     local or regional cooperative weed management entities, such 
     as entities for weed management areas or districts, that 
     organize locally affected stakeholders to control or 
     eradicate weeds;
       (4) to leverage additional funds from a variety of public 
     and private sources to control or eradicate weeds through 
     local stakeholders; and
       (5) to promote healthy, diverse, and desirable plant 
     communities by abating through a variety of measures the 
     threat posed by harmful, nonnative weeds.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Advisory committee.--The term ``Advisory Committee'' 
     means the advisory committee established under section 5.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other 
     territory or possession of the United States.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.

       The Secretary shall establish in the Office of the 
     Secretary a program to provide financial assistance through 
     States to eligible weed management entities to control or 
     eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private 
     land.

     SEC. 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish in the 
     Department of the Interior an advisory committee to make 
     recommendations to the Secretary regarding the annual 
     allocation of funds to States under section 6 and other 
     issues related to funding under this Act.
       (b) Composition.--The Advisory Committee shall be composed 
     of not more than 10 individuals appointed by the Secretary 
     who--
       (1) have knowledge and experience in harmful, nonnative 
     weed management; and
       (2) represent the range of economic, conservation, 
     geographic, and social interests affected by harmful, 
     nonnative weeds.
       (c) Term.--The term of a member of the Advisory Committee 
     shall be 4 years.
       (d) Compensation.--
       (1) In general.--A member of the Advisory Committee shall 
     receive no compensation for the service of the member on the 
     Advisory Committee.
       (2) Travel expenses.--A member of the Advisory Committee 
     shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu 
     of subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an 
     agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United 
     States Code, while away from the home or regular place of 
     business of the member in the performance of the duties of 
     the Advisory Committee.
       (e) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Advisory 
     Committee.

     SEC. 6. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO STATES.

       (a) In General.--In consultation with the Advisory 
     Committee, the Secretary shall allocate funds made available 
     for each fiscal year under section 8 to States to provide 
     funding in accordance with section 7 to eligible weed 
     management entities to carry out projects approved by States 
     to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public 
     and private land.
       (b) Amount.--The Secretary shall determine the amount of 
     funds allocated to a State for a fiscal year under this 
     section on the basis of--
       (1) the seriousness of the harmful, nonnative weed problem 
     or potential problem in the State, or a portion of the State;
       (2) the extent to which the Federal funds will be used to 
     leverage non-Federal funds to address the harmful, nonnative 
     weed problems in the State;
       (3) the extent to which the State has made progress in 
     addressing harmful, nonnative weed problems in the State;
       (4) the extent to which weed management entities in a State 
     are eligible for base payments under section 7; and
       (5) other factors recommended by the Advisory Committee and 
     approved by the Secretary.

     SEC. 7. USE OF FUNDS ALLOCATED TO STATES.

       (a) In General.--A State that receives an allocation of 
     funds under section 6 for a fiscal year shall use--
       (1) not more than 25 percent of the allocation to make a 
     base payment to each weed management entity in accordance 
     with subsection (b); and
       (2) not less than 75 percent of the allocation to make 
     financial awards to weed management entities in accordance 
     with subsection (c).
       (b) Base Payments.--
       (1) Use by weed management entities.--
       (A) In general.--Base payments under subsection (a)(1) 
     shall be used by weed management entities--
       (i) to pay the Federal share of the cost of carrying out 
     projects described in subsection (d) that are selected by the 
     State in accordance with subsection (d); or
       (ii) for any other purpose relating to the activities of 
     the weed management entities, subject to guidelines 
     established by the State.
       (B) Federal share.--Under subparagraph (A), the Federal 
     share of the cost of carrying out a project described in 
     subsection (d) shall not exceed 50 percent.
       (2) Eligibility of weed management entities.--To be 
     eligible to obtain a base payment under paragraph (1) for a 
     fiscal year, a weed management entity in a State shall--
       (A) be established by local stakeholders--
       (i) to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on 
     public or private land; or
       (ii) to increase public knowledge and education concerning 
     the need to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on 
     public or private land;
       (B)(i) for the first fiscal year for which the entity 
     receives a base payment, provide to the State a description 
     of--
       (I) the purposes for which the entity was established; and
       (II) any projects carried out to accomplish those purposes; 
     and
       (ii) for any subsequent fiscal year for which the entity 
     receives a base payment, provide to the State--
       (I) a description of the activities carried out by the 
     entity in the previous fiscal year--

       (aa) to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on 
     public or private land; or
       (bb) to increase public knowledge and education concerning 
     the need to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on 
     public or private land; and

       (II) the results of each such activity; and
       (C) meet such additional eligibility requirements, and 
     conform to such process for determining eligibility, as the 
     State may establish.
       (c) Financial Awards.--
       (1) Use by weed management entities.--
       (A) In general.--Financial awards under subsection (a)(2) 
     shall be used by weed management entities to pay the Federal 
     share of the cost of carrying out projects described in 
     subsection (d) that are selected by the State in accordance 
     with subsection (d).
       (B) Federal share.--Under subparagraph (A), the Federal 
     share of the cost of carrying out a project described in 
     subsection (d) shall not exceed 50 percent.
       (2) Eligibility of weed management entities.--To be 
     eligible to obtain a financial award under paragraph (1) for 
     a fiscal year, a weed management entity in a State shall--
       (A) meet the requirements for eligibility for a base 
     payment under subsection (b)(2); and
       (B) submit to the State a description of the project for 
     which the financial award is sought.
       (d) Projects.--
       (1) In general.--An eligible weed management entity may use 
     a base payment or financial award received under this section 
     to carry out a project relating to the control or eradication 
     of harmful, nonnative weeds on public or private land, 
     including--
       (A) education, inventories and mapping, management, 
     monitoring, and similar activities, including the payment of 
     the cost of personnel and equipment; and
       (B) innovative projects, with results that are disseminated 
     to the public.
       (2) Selection of projects.--A State shall select projects 
     for funding under this section on a competitive basis, taking 
     into consideration (with equal consideration given to 
     economic and natural values)--
       (A) the seriousness of the harmful, nonnative weed problem 
     or potential problem addressed by the project;
       (B) the likelihood that the project will prevent or resolve 
     the problem, or increase knowledge about resolving similar 
     problems in the future;
       (C) the extent to which the payment will leverage non-
     Federal funds to address the harmful, nonnative weed problem 
     addressed by the project;
       (D) the extent to which the entity has made progress in 
     addressing harmful, nonnative weed problems;
       (E) the extent to which the project will provide a 
     comprehensive approach to the control or eradication of 
     harmful, nonnative weeds;
       (F) the extent to which the project will reduce the total 
     population of a harmful, nonnative weed within the State; and
       (G) other factors that the State determines to be relevant.
       (3) Scope of projects.--
       (A) In general.--A weed management entity shall determine 
     the geographic scope of the harmful, nonnative weed problem 
     to be addressed through a project using a base payment or 
     financial award received under this section.
       (B) Multiple states.--A weed management entity may use the 
     base payment or financial award to carry out a project to 
     address the harmful, nonnative weed problem of more than 1 
     State if the entity meets the requirements of applicable 
     State laws.
       (4) Land.--A weed management entity may use a base payment 
     or financial award received under this section to carry out a 
     project to control or eradicate weeds on any public or 
     private land with the approval of the owner or operator of 
     the land, other than land that is devoted to the cultivation 
     of row crops, fruits, or vegetables.

[[Page S10805]]

       (5) Prohibition on projects to control aquatic noxious 
     weeds or animal pests.--A base payment or financial award 
     under this section may not be used to carry out a project to 
     control or eradicate aquatic noxious weeds or animal pests.
       (e) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 5 percent of the 
     funds made available under section 8 for a fiscal year may be 
     used by the States or the Federal Government to pay the 
     administrative costs of the program established by this Act, 
     including the costs of complying with Federal environmental 
     laws.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Larry 
Craig the Harmful Non-native Weed Control Act of 2000. This legislation 
will provide critically needed resources to local agencies to reduce 
the spread of harmful weeds that are destroying the productivity of 
farmland and reducing ecological diversity.
  In the last few years, public and private lands in the west have seen 
a startling increase in the spread of harmful, non-native weeds. In 
South Dakota, these weeds choke out native species, destroy good 
grazing land, and cost farmers and ranchers thousands of dollars a year 
to control. On public lands in South Dakota and throughout the West, 
the spread of the weeds has outpaced the ability of land managers to 
control them, threatening species diversity and, at times, spreading on 
to private land.
  This problem has become so severe that the White House has created an 
Invasive Species Council to address it. As Secretary Bruce Babbitt 
noted, ``The blending of the natural world into one great monoculture 
of the most aggressive species is, I think, a blow to the spirit and 
beauty of the natural world.''
  Despite these efforts, the scale of this problem is vast. Some 
estimate that it could cost well into the hundreds of millions of 
dollars to control effectively the spread of these weeds. This 
legislation will help to meet that need by putting funding directly 
into the hands of the local weed boards and managers who already are 
working to control this problem and whose lands are directly affected.
  Specifically, this legislation authorizes new weed control funding 
and establishes an Advisory Board in the Department of Interior to 
identify the areas of greatest need for the distribution of those 
funds. States, in turn, will transfer up to 25 percent of it directly 
to local weed control boards in order to support ongoing activities and 
spur the creation of new weed control boards, where necessary. The 
remaining 75 percent of funds will be made available to weed control 
boards on a competitive basis to fund weed control projects.
  I would like to thank Senator Craig for his work on this issue, and 
to thank the National Cattlemen's Association and the Nature 
Conservancy, who have been instrumental to the development of this 
bill. Now that this legislation has been introduced, it is my hope that 
we can work with all interested stakeholders to enact it as soon as 
possible. I look forward to working with my colleagues during this 
process.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 3223. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to establish 
the conservation security program; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


                 THE CONSERVATION SECURITY ACT OF 2000

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing the Conservation 
Security Act of 2000, a bill which represents a fresh new approach to 
the future of farm policy.
  America's farmers and ranchers hold the key for production of a 
bountiful, safe, and nourishing food supply for Americans and for the 
population around the globe, as well as for the future for our 
environment. Farmers and ranchers have a long history to build on.
  Specifically on the issue of conservation, it became a national 
priority in the days of the Dust Bowl, leading to the creation in the 
1930s of the Soil Conservation Service at the Department of 
Agriculture, which is now the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 
With the very foundation of our food supply at risk, the Government 
stepped forward with billions of dollars in assistance to help farmers 
preserve their precious soils.
  Since that time, Federal spending on conservation has steadily 
declined in inflation adjusted dollars. Yet today agriculture faces a 
wide range of environmental challenges, from overgrazing and manure 
management to cropland runoff and water quality impairment. Urban and 
rural citizens alike are increasingly concerned about the environmental 
impacts of agriculture.
  Farmers and ranchers pride themselves on being good stewards of the 
land, and there are farm-based solutions to these problems being 
implemented all over the country. But every dollar spent on 
constructing a filter strip or developing a nutrient management plan is 
a dollar that farmers don't have for other purposes in hard times like 
these. And even in better times, there is a lot of competition for that 
dollar.
  So who benefits from conservation on farm lands? As much or more than 
the farmer, it is all of us, who depend on the careful stewardship of 
our air, water, soil and our other natural resources. Farmers and 
ranchers tend not only to their crops and animals, but also to our 
nation's natural resources. They are the real stewards for future 
generations.
  Since we all share in these benefits, it is only right that we share 
in conserving them. It is time to enter into a true conservation 
partnership with our farmers and ranchers to help ensure that 
conservation is an integral and permanent part of agricultural 
production nationwide.
  In the 1985 farm bill, we required that farmers who wanted to 
participate in USDA farm programs develop soil conservation plans for 
their highly erodible land. This provision helped put new conservation 
plans in place for our most fragile farmlands. In the most recent farm 
bill, we streamlined conservation programs and established new cost-
share and incentive payments for certain practices.
  The Conservation Security Act of 2000, which establishes the 
Conservation Security Program, builds on our past successes and takes a 
bold step forward in farm and conservation policy.
  My bill would establish a universal and voluntary incentive payment 
program to support and encourage conservation activities by farmers and 
ranchers. Under this program, farmers and ranchers could receive up to 
$50,000 per year in conservation payments through entering into 5 to 
10-year contracts with USDA and choose from one of three tiers of 
conservation practices. Payments are based on the number and types of 
practices they maintain or adopt on their working lands. It is not a 
set-aside or easement program.
  For implementing a basic set of practices, farmers would receive an 
annual payment of up to $20,000, as well as an advance payment of the 
greater of $1,000 or 20% of the annual payment. This basic category, 
Tier I, would include such practices as nutrient management, soil 
conservation, and wildlife habitat management.
  To receive up to $35,000 and an advance payment of the greater of 
$2,000 or 20% of the annual payment, farmers would add to their Class I 
practices by choosing a minimum number of Class II practices--including 
such practices as controlled rotational grazing, partial field 
practices like buffers strips and windbreaks, wetland restoration and 
wildlife habitat enhancement.
  Farmers who adopt comprehensive Tier III conservation practices on 
their whole farm--under a plan that addresses all aspects of air, land, 
water and wildlife--would receive up to $50,000 plus an advance payment 
of the greater of $3,000 or 20% of the annual payment.
  Again, I emphasize, the Conservation Security Program would be 
totally voluntary. It would be up to the farmer or rancher to decide if 
they want to do it. If they do, then they would get additional 
payments. A lot of these practices farmers are already doing now, for 
which they receive little or no support. My legislation changes that by 
rewarding those farmers and ranchers who have already implemented these 
practices through payments to maintain them.
  Again, these practices don't just benefit the farmer or rancher. The 
beneficiaries are all of us. We all will benefit from cleaner air, 
cleaner streams and rivers, saving soil, protecting our groundwater, 
and wildlife habitats.

[[Page S10806]]

  Our private lands are a national resource, and conservation on farm 
and ranchlands provides environmental benefits that are just as 
important as the production of abundant and safe food. I am introducing 
the Conservation Security Act because I believe it will help secure 
both the economic future of our farmers by helping them obtain better 
income and as a cornerstone of our national farm policy and the 
environmental future of agriculture.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. BINGAMAN (by request):
  S. 3224. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 
studies of specific areas for potential inclusion in the National Park 
System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


                       national park area studies

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to 
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to undertake studies of several 
areas to determine whether these areas merit potential designation as 
units of the National Park System. I am introducing this legislation at 
the request of the Administration. I ask unanimous consent that a 
letter from Donald J. Barry, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for 
Fish and Wildlife and Parks, transmitting the proposed legislation, be 
printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.

                                S. 3224

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Park Service 
     Studies Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF STUDIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter 
     referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall conduct studies of 
     the geographical areas and historic and cultural themes 
     listed in subsection (c) to determine the appropriateness of 
     including such areas or themes in the National Park System.
       (b) Criteria.--In conducting the studies authorized by this 
     Act, the Secretary shall use the criteria for the study of 
     areas for potential inclusion in the National Park System in 
     accordance with section 8 of Public Law 91-383, as amended by 
     section 303 of the National Park System New Areas Study Act 
     (Public Law 105-391; 112 Stat. 3501).
       (c) Study Areas.--The Secretary shall conduct studies of 
     the following:
       (1) Erskine House/Russian American Storehouse, Alaska;
       (2) Blackwater Canyon, West Virginia;
       (3) Farm Labor Movement Sites, California and other States;
       (4) Carter G. Woodson Home, District of Columbia;
       (5) Governors Island, New York; and
       (6) World War II Homefront Sites, Multi-State.

     SEC. 3. REPORTS.

       The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Resources of the House of Representatives a report on the 
     findings, conclusions, and recommendations of each study 
     under section 2 within three fiscal years following the date 
     on which funds are first made available for each study.
                                  ____

                                       Department of the Interior,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                   Washington, DC, March 22, 2000.
     Hon. Al Gore Jr.,
     President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is a draft of a bill, ``To 
     authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct studies of 
     specific areas for potential inclusion in the National Park 
     System, and for other purposes.''
       We recommend that the bill be introduced, referred to the 
     appropriate committee, and enacted.
       The bill authorizes studies of six specific areas and 
     cultural themes for potential inclusion in the National Park 
     System. The legislation provides for the Secretary to follow 
     criteria for such studies in existing law, and to submit 
     reports on each study to the appropriate congressional 
     committees within three years after funds for the study are 
     made available. The areas and themes that are the subject of 
     these special resource studies (also called new area studies) 
     are described on the attached page.
       A letter listing these six studies has been transmitted to 
     the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the 
     House Resources Committee, pursuant to the requirement of the 
     National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-391) 
     that the Secretary submit a list of areas recommended for 
     study for potential inclusion in the National Park System to 
     those committees at the beginning of each calendar year with 
     the President's budget.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that, from 
     the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no 
     objection to the submission of the enclosed draft legislation 
     to the Congress.
           Sincerely,

                                              Donald J. Barry,

                                      Assistant Secretary for Fish
                                           and Wildlife and Parks.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM:
  S. 3225. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the tip tax credit to employers of cosmetologists and to promote tax 
compliance in the cosmetology sector; to the Committee on Finance.


          cosmetology tax fairness and compliance act of 2000

  Mr. SANTORUM. 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. 3225

       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 ``Cosmetology Tax Fairness and 
     Compliance Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF CREDIT FOR PORTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   TAXES PAID WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYEE TIPS.

       (a) Expansion of Credit to Other Lines of Business.--
     Paragraph (2) of section 45B(b) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Application only to certain lines of business.--In 
     applying paragraph (1), there shall be taken into account 
     only tips received from customers or clients in connection 
     with--
       ``(A) the providing, delivering, or serving of food or 
     beverages for consumption if the tipping of employees 
     delivering or serving food or beverages by customers is 
     customary, or
       ``(B) the providing of any cosmetology service for 
     customers or clients at a facility licensed to provide such 
     service if the tipping of employees providing such service is 
     customary.''.
       (b) Definition of Cosmetology Services.--Section 45B of 
     such Code is amended by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) 
     as subsections (d) and (e), respectively, and by inserting 
     after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Cosmetology Service.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `cosmetology service' means--
       ``(1) hairdressing,
       ``(2) haircutting,
       ``(3) manicures and pedicures,
       ``(4) body waxing, facials, mud packs, wraps and other 
     similar skin treatments, and
       ``(5) any other beauty related service provided at a 
     facility at which a majority of the services provided (as 
     determined on the basis of gross revenue) are described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (4).''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to taxes paid after December 31, 
     2000.

      SEC. 3. INFORMATION REPORTING BY PROVIDERS OF COSMETOLOGY 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by inserting after section 6050S the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 6050T. RETURNS RELATING TO COSMETOLOGY SERVICES AND 
                   INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO COSMETOLOGISTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Every person who leases space to any 
     individual for use by the individual in providing cosmetology 
     services (as defined in section 45B(c)) on more than 5 
     calendar days during a calendar year shall make a return, 
     according to the forms or regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary, setting forth the name, address, and TIN of each 
     such lessee.
       ``(b) Statement To Be Furnished to Individuals With Respect 
     to Whom Information Is Furnished.--Every person required to 
     make a return under subsection (a) shall furnish to each 
     individual whose name is required to be set forth on such 
     return a written statement showing--
       ``(1) the name, address, and phone number of the 
     information contact of the person required to make such 
     return, and
       ``(2) a statement informing the recipient that (as required 
     by this section), the provider of the notice has advised the 
     Internal Revenue Service that the recipient provided 
     cosmetology services during the calendar year to which the 
     statement relates.
       ``(c) Additional Information To Be Provided to Service 
     Provider.--A person who provides a statement pursuant to 
     subsection (b) to an individual who provides cosmetology 
     services shall include with the statement a publication of 
     the Secretary, as designated by the Secretary, describing the 
     tax obligations of independent contractors unless the 
     publication was previously provided to the individual by the 
     statement provider.
       ``(d) Method and Time for Providing Statement and 
     Additional Information.--The written statement required by 
     subsection (b) and the additional information, if any, 
     required to be furnished under subsection (c) shall be 
     furnished (either in person or in a statement mailed by 
     first-class mail which includes adequate notice that the 
     statement is enclosed) to the person on or before January 31 
     of the year following the calendar year for which the return 
     under subsection (a) is to be made. Such statement shall be 
     in such form as the Secretary may prescribe by regulations.
       ``(e) Lease.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `lease' include booth rentals and any other arrangements 
     pursuant to which

[[Page S10807]]

     an individual provides cosmetology services, other than as an 
     employee, on premises not owned by the service provider.
       ``(f) Exception for Services Provided by Proprietorships 
     With Employees.--This section shall not apply to leases of 
     premises with at least 3 work stations for providing 
     cosmetology services.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 6724(d)(1)(B) of such Code (relating to the 
     definition of information returns) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (xiv),
       (B) by adding a comma at the end of clause (xv),
       (C) by striking ``; or'' at the end of clause (xvi) and 
     inserting a comma,
       (D) by striking the period at the end of clause (xvii) and 
     inserting ``, or'', and
       (E) by inserting after clause (xvii) the following new 
     clause:
       ``(xviii) section 6050T (relating to returns by cosmetology 
     service providers).''.
       (2) Section 6724(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (Z) and 
     inserting a comma,
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (AA) 
     and inserting ``, or'', and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (AA) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(BB) section 6050T(c) (relating to statements from 
     cosmetology service providers) even if the recipient is not a 
     payee.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to calendar years after 2000.

                          ____________________