[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 15, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2887-S2890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Casey, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. 
        Roberts):
  S. 1475. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to extend and 
modify certain charitable tax provisions; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1475

       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 ``Charities Helping Americans 
     Regularly Throughout the Year Act of 2019''.

     SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF STANDARD MILEAGE RATE FOR CHARITABLE 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS DEDUCTION.

       (a) Determination of Standard Mileage Rate for Charitable 
     Contributions Deduction.--Subsection (i) of section 170 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(i) Standard Mileage Rate for Use of Passenger 
     Automobile.--For purposes of computing the deduction under 
     this section for use of a passenger automobile, the standard 
     mileage rate shall be the rate determined by the Secretary, 
     which rate shall not be less than the standard mileage rate 
     used for purposes of section 213.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to miles traveled after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 3. MANDATORY E-FILING BY EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6033 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (n) as 
     subsection (o) and by inserting after subsection (m) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(n) Mandatory Electronic Filing.--Any organization 
     required to file a return under this section shall file such 
     return in electronic form.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (7) of section 527(j) 
     of such Code is amended by striking ``if the organization 
     has'' and all that follows through ``such calendar year''.
       (c) Inspection of Electronically Filed Annual Returns.--
     Subsection (b) of section 6104 of such Code is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``Any annual return required 
     to be filed electronically under section 6033(n) shall be 
     made available by the Secretary to the public as soon as 
     practicable in a machine readable format.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Transitional relief.--
       (A) Small organizations.--
       (i) In general.--In the case of any small organizations, or 
     any other organizations for which the Secretary of the 
     Treasury or the Secretary's delegate (hereafter referred to 
     in this paragraph as the ``Secretary'') determines the 
     application of the amendments made by this section would 
     cause undue burden without a delay, the Secretary may delay 
     the application of such amendments, but such delay shall not 
     apply to any taxable year beginning on or after the date 2 
     years after of the enactment of this Act.
       (ii) Small organization.--For purposes of clause (i), the 
     term ``small organization'' means any organization--

       (I) the gross receipts of which for the taxable year are 
     less than $200,000; and
       (II) the aggregate gross assets of which at the end of the 
     taxable year are less than $500,000.

       (B) Organizations filing form 990-t.--In the case of any 
     organization described in section 511(a)(2) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 which is subject to the tax imposed by 
     section 511(a)(1) of such Code on its unrelated business 
     taxable income, or any organization required to file a return 
     under section 6033 of such Code and include information under 
     subsection (e) thereof, the Secretary may delay the 
     application of the amendments made by this section, but such 
     delay shall not apply to any taxable year beginning on or 
     after the date 2 years after of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. MODIFICATION OF RULES RELATING TO DONOR ADVISED 
                   FUNDS.

       (a) Allowance of Tax-Free Charitable Distributions From 
     Individual Retirement Accounts.--
       (1) In general.--Clause (i) of section 408(d)(8)(B) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``or any 
     fund or account described in section 4966(d)(2)''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply to distributions made in taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2018.
       (b) Return Disclosures.--
       (1) Distributions.--Subsection (k) of section 6033 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a comma; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(4) list the total number of such funds which were in 
     existence for the 36-month period ending at the close of such 
     taxable year,
       ``(5) list the total number of funds described in paragraph 
     (4) which made at least 1 grant during the period described 
     in such paragraph, and
       ``(6) set forth--
       ``(A) whether such organization has a publicly available 
     policy with respect to funds which are inactive, dormant, or 
     do not make distributions during the period described in 
     paragraph (4),
       ``(B) a description of the organization's policy for 
     responding to funds described in subparagraph (A) or a 
     statement that no such policy is in effect, and
       ``(C) whether such organization regularly and consistently 
     monitors and enforces compliance with the policy described in 
     subparagraph (A) with respect to such funds.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply to returns for taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 2019.

     SEC. 5. MODIFICATION OF THE TAX RATE FOR THE EXCISE TAX ON 
                   INVESTMENT INCOME OF PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 4940(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``2 percent'' and 
     inserting ``1 percent''.
       (b) Elimination of Reduced Tax Where Foundation Meets 
     Certain Distribution Requirements.--Section 4940 of such Code 
     is amended by striking subsection (e).

[[Page S2888]]

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Rubio, Mr. 
        Boozman, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Perdue, Mrs. Blackburn, Mrs. 
        Fischer, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Portman, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Blunt, Mrs. 
        Hyde-Smith, and Mr. Daines):
  S. 1480. A bill to protect law enforcement officers, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about Police 
Week and some legislation we have introduced to honor and support our 
men and women in blue called, not surprisingly, the Back the Blue Act. 
With regard to the comments of my friend from Illinois, who was 
bemoaning the fact that there didn't seem to be bipartisan legislation 
that could come to the floor of the Senate, be debated, voted on, and 
passed with concurrence of the House of Representatives and the 
President's signature, I note that, actually, there is a lot we could 
be doing together.
  I have been on the floor a number of times describing the 
humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border. That is 
something we could work together to address. I have introduced 
bipartisan and bicameral legislation with my friend and colleague Henry 
Cuellar at the House of Representatives that would address that 
humanitarian crisis and, I believe, take big steps toward stopping it. 
That is something we could do together.
  I know the Democratic whip from Illinois doesn't particularly like 
the idea that President Trump is nominating highly qualified people for 
the judiciary and for executive branch nominations--the types of people 
we are voting on today and will vote on tomorrow. Obviously, that is 
not high on his agenda, but I submit that there are a lot of other 
things we could do besides fixing this humanitarian crisis.
  We could work on roads and bridges together. I know that Chairman 
Barrasso of the Environment and Public Works Committee is soliciting 
the views of a number of Senators and is going to come to the floor, 
hopefully, in the next couple of months with some ideas on what that 
infrastructure package should look like. I actually think that is the 
best way to handle that.
  Again, these are nonpartisan issues. Infrastructure is not a partisan 
issue, but figuring out how to pay for it is the biggest challenge.
  I note that Ms. Pelosi, Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, and 
the President met and talked about a $2 trillion pricetag. Well, it 
seems to me that is backward. We ought to be talking about what sort of 
plan makes sense and where we can get the votes to build consensus on 
that plan rather than saying that we want to spend this much money on a 
plan to come.
  That is why I think the committee work that is being done in the 
Senate, in the Environment and Public Works Committee, and, hopefully, 
in the House is so important. Once the Environment and Public Works 
Committee makes a proposal and votes that out of the committee on a 
bipartisan basis, then, the Senate Finance Committee will be asked to 
come up with a way to pay for it. That is always the part that people 
want to talk about the least, but it is important.
  It is important we not continue to spend money we don't have and 
increase our deficits and debt. Rather, we need to come up with a user-
fee model, which is what the gas tax is designed to do, and find a way 
not to pay for that infrastructure and deal with the congestion and 
traffic by just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, literally just 
increasing the money we borrow and giving that tab to our children and 
grandchildren to pay back. There are a lot of really good ideas out 
there and ones on which I think we ought to work together.
  I don't share the dystopian views of the Senator from Illinois in 
terms of the Senate. The Senate is not broken. It is just a matter of 
political will to try to work together to get beyond the petty 
disagreements that seem to come up every day and to just do our work. 
Sometimes you don't necessarily appear on TV or have your name appear 
in lights when you are doing that sort of hard work, but it is 
essential to get the Senate's work done and, indeed, to get the work of 
the American people done. Those are some things we could work on 
together if there is a political will to do so.
  Mr. President, this week, tens of thousands of Americans will make 
their way to Washington for National Police Week, our annual 
opportunity to honor the brave men and women in blue who have lost 
their lives while protecting our communities.
  Of course, this includes many officers from Texas. I am particularly 
proud of the Fort Worth Police Pipes and Drums Band and the Texas 
Department of Public Safety Pipes and Drums Corps that performed on the 
National Mall yesterday.
  Law enforcement is a calling answered by a select few. These brave 
men and women have chosen a difficult and sometimes dangerous life, 
dedicated to upholding the law, defending or civil liberties, and 
protecting our cities and our neighborhoods. They wake up each morning 
and put on a uniform, never knowing what the day may hold. It requires 
a lot of courage and sacrifice--both from the officers and their 
families--and I am grateful for those who selflessly serve our 
communities each day.
  Each year for Police Week, we honor the law enforcement community to 
remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. One of the most 
emblematic reminders of that sacrifice is the National Law Enforcement 
Officers Memorial, which is here in Washington, DC. It is a beautiful 
tribute to the Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials who 
have died in the line of duty and features marble walls filled with 
more than 21,000 names. Each of those names represents an American 
hero. Sadly, this year, we add the names of 13 Texans to that memorial. 
These officers gave their lives in service to their communities and to 
our country, and we thank them and their families for their sacrifices, 
and we remember and honor their names.
  Each year for Police Week, we pay tribute to those who go to work and 
never come home. We honor the lives of those we have lost. We share in 
the grief of their families, and we promise never to forget the stories 
of heroism they left behind.
  While we remember the fallen this week, I hope we will also take time 
to consider how we can do more to support and serve those who have 
taken the oath to defend us.
  Throughout my career in public office, I have had the pleasure of 
interacting with law enforcement officials from across my State and, 
certainly, here at the Federal level, including our incredible Capitol 
Police officers. I am continually impressed and inspired by their 
professionalism, their conviction, and their unwavering commitment to 
enforcing the law, and I want to ensure that they have what they need 
when they put on that uniform with confidence every morning.
  Last Congress we made a lot of progress, and two bills that I 
introduced then are now law. The first is the Justice Served Act, which 
I introduced with my colleague Senator Klobuchar, another example of 
bipartisan legislation. This bill provides grants to State and local 
governments to prosecute cold cases by making sure the newly tested DNA 
evidence is used to investigate and prosecute unsolved cases. The 
Justice Served Act helps to ensure that violent criminals are taken off 
the streets and brought to justice.
  We also passed legislation I introduced with Senator Peters from 
Michigan to authorize the Project Safe Neighborhoods program at the 
Department of Justice. This is a nationwide partnership among Federal, 
State, and local law enforcement and prosecutors who use data-driven, 
evidence-based, and trauma-informed practices to reduce violent crime. 
It is inspired by a successful program that was initiated at the State 
level in Texas, when I was attorney general, but the truth is it 
started in the Eastern District. I believe it was in Virginia. Of 
course, it was designed to focus on reducing gun crime and gun violence 
by targeting those who repetitively used firearms in the commission of 
violent crimes.
  We were glad to use the examples in Virginia and in Texas to bring 
the model to the Nation and to promote this proactive and collaborative 
approach to prevent violence in our neighborhoods.

[[Page S2889]]

  I am appreciative of the fact that our colleagues have seen fit to 
work together to pass both of these bills and of President Trump for 
signing those, but I know there is a lot more that we can and should 
do.
  Today I am introducing another piece of legislation called the Back 
the Blue Act, which I am introducing along with our colleagues Senator 
Cruz from Texas and Senator Tillis from North Carolina. This 
legislation sends a strong message to the more than 900,000 law 
enforcement officers serving in our country that we support them and 
that we will not tolerate any act of violence against them, period.
  In recent years, we have seen brutal and inexcusable attacks on law 
enforcement officers across the United States, including one in Texas 
that rocked our entire State.
  In 2016, a man killed five police officers and injured nine others in 
Dallas. It was a sobering reminder of the danger these officers face 
every day and a call for us to take action to do more to support them.
  This bill makes clear our support for these public servants who 
dedicate their lives to protecting and serving us. The Back the Blue 
Act would add stiff mandatory penalties and make it a Federal crime to 
kill or attempt to kill a law enforcement officer, a Federal judge, or 
a federally funded public safety officer. It would also make it a 
Federal crime to assault a law enforcement officer.
  There is zero justification for attacking a police officer--none. We 
need to show that we value their lives, and we need to make it 
absolutely clear that we will hold those who carry out crimes against 
them accountable. The Back the Blue Act sends that message loud and 
clear.
  I think it is important to point out that this legislation would also 
help make our communities stronger by allowing grant funds to be used 
for efforts that help foster more trust between the police and the 
communities they protect. This bill would better serve the men and 
women who work tirelessly in our communities each day.
  There is no doubt in my mind that our Nation is better and safer 
because of the hard work and dedication of our law enforcement 
officials. Here in the Senate we should do all we can to help them do 
their job as effectively and as safely as possible. The Back the Blue 
Act would be a great start.
  I hope my colleagues will consider this legislation and decide to 
support it and, more importantly, show our law enforcement across the 
country that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KAINE (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. 
        Hirono):
  S. 1483. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 
institutions of higher education to have an independent advocate for 
campus sexual assault prevention and response; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. Sexual assault is a major issue on our 
Nation's college campuses. In 2016, the Department of Justice found 
that one in four college women are sexually assaulted while in school. 
Alarmingly, the majority of these crimes will go unreported. The 
consequences of these crimes are often damaging to a student's mental, 
physical, and emotional well-being and the aftermath can drive many 
survivors to drop out of school.
  Sexual assault survivors deserve access to a safe and supportive 
educational environment. I have met with students in Virginia, most 
recently at the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech, who have 
expressed the need for someone on campus to turn to for unbiased 
advice, guidance, and support following an assault. Given the 
prevalence of this issue, it is clear that our federal higher education 
policy must do more to prevent sexual assaults and ensure that 
survivors have access to and can navigate through a plethora of 
resources.
  This is why I am pleased to reintroduce today the Survivor Outreach 
and Support Campus Act of 2019 or SOS Campus Act. The SOS Campus Act 
requires every institution of higher education that receives federal 
funding to designate an independent advocate for campus sexual assault 
prevention and response. The advocate will help students access all of 
the resources available to them, both on and off campus, in the wake of 
a sexual assault and will guide them through the process of reporting 
their assault if they choose to do so, acting always in the interests 
of the victim, not the university.
  The SOS Campus Act requires that the confidential advocate is 
responsible for ensuring that survivors, regardless of whether they 
decide to report the crime, have access to emergency and follow-up 
medical care, guidance on reporting assaults to law enforcement, 
medical forensic or evidentiary exams, crisis intervention, and 
information on their legal rights. The advocate will also conduct a 
public information campaign on campus to inform students of their 
services, and train other university staff to provide information to 
students about the advocate.
  I am proud to reintroduce this legislation with Senators Baldwin, 
Hirono and Feinstein, which would ensure all college students across 
our country have access to a supportive advocate for sexual assault 
survivors. It is our responsibility as public servants to advocate 
relentlessly for reforms to prevent sexual assault and protections for 
survivors. I strongly encourage my colleagues in the Senate to consider 
this legislation when we consider reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MANCHIN:
  S. 1486. A bill to amend title 11, United States Code, to include 
certain pension as administrative expenses in bankruptcy, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Prioritizing 
Our Workers Act, which will make changes to the current bankruptcy 
code, requiring companies going through bankruptcy proceedings to pay 
unpaid vested benefits, like workers' pensions, before they pay out 
other claims against them.
  I firmly believe that no one should be denied their pension because 
their employer goes bankrupt. Hard-working men and women across the 
country go to work every day for years, paying into these pension plans 
each paycheck with the expectation that one day they can retire and 
provide for their families.
  Companies offering pension plans made promises to their workers and 
need to live up to those promises, no matter what else happens to that 
company financially.
  In West Virginia, we are far too familiar with coal and steel 
companies leaving their workers out to dry in this way. This is 
absolutely unacceptable. That is why I am introducing this bill, and I 
look forward to my fellow Senators joining me to support and protect 
pensions across this country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. UDALL (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 1488. A bill to improve the integrity and safety of interstate 
horseracing, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1488

       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 ``Racehorse Doping Ban Act of 
     2019''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Interstate off-track wager; horsemen's group; host 
     racing association; off-track betting system.--The terms 
     ``interstate off-track wager'', ``horsemen's group'', ``host 
     racing association'', and ``off-track betting system'' have 
     the meanings given those terms in section 3 of the Interstate 
     Horseracing Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. 3002).
       (2) Veterinarian-client-patient relationship.--The term 
     ``veterinarian-client-patient relationship'' has the meaning 
     of that term as used in the Principles of Veterinary Medical 
     Ethics of the American Veterinary Medical Association (as in 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act).

     SEC. 3. INDEPENDENT ANTI-DOPING ORGANIZATION FOR INTERSTATE 
                   HORSERACING.

       (a) In General.--There shall be an independent anti-doping 
     organization with responsibility for ensuring the integrity 
     and safety of horseraces that are the subject of interstate 
     off-track wagers.

[[Page S2890]]

       (b) Duties.--The duties of the independent anti-doping 
     organization referred to in subsection (a) with respect to 
     horseraces described in that subsection are the following:
       (1) Developing, publishing, and maintaining rules with 
     respect to--
       (A) substances, methods, and treatments that may not be 
     administered to a horse participating in such a horserace;
       (B) substances, methods, and treatments that may be 
     administered to a horse participating in such a horserace in 
     the context of a veterinarian-client-patient relationship; 
     and
       (C) the use of substances, methods, and treatments 
     permitted under subparagraph (B), including rules with 
     respect to the period before a horserace (which may not be 
     less than 24 hours before a horserace) during which a horse 
     may no longer receive such substances, methods, and 
     treatments.
       (2) Implementing programs relating to anti-doping 
     education, research, testing, and adjudication to prevent any 
     horse participating in a horserace described in subsection 
     (a) from racing under the effect of any substance, method, or 
     treatment that could affect the performance of the horse 
     (other than a substance, method, or treatment described in 
     subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) administered during a time 
     period that is permitted under subparagraph (C) of that 
     paragraph).
       (3) Excluding from participating in any horserace described 
     in subsection (a) any person that the independent anti-doping 
     organization or a State racing commission determines--
       (A) has violated a rule with respect to a substance, 
     method, or treatment that may not be administered to a horse 
     participating in such a horserace under subparagraph (A) of 
     paragraph (1);
       (B) has violated 3 or more times a rule with respect to a 
     substance, method, or treatment permitted under subparagraphs 
     (B) and (C) of that paragraph that has the ability to affect 
     the performance of a horse; or
       (C) is subject to a suspension from horseracing activities 
     by any State racing commission.
       (c) Deadline.--The independent anti-doping organization 
     referred to in subsection (a) shall publish the rules 
     required by subsection (b) not later than one year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Suspension of Exclusion Period.--The independent anti-
     doping organization referred to in subsection (a) may--
       (1) suspend a period of exclusion from participating in a 
     horserace imposed on a person pursuant to subsection (b)(3) 
     if the person provides substantial assistance to the 
     organization or other persons that results in the discovery 
     of--
       (A) a violation of a rule published under subsection (b) by 
     another person; or
       (B) a violation of Federal or State law by another person; 
     and
       (2) reinstate all or part of a period of exclusion imposed 
     on a person and suspended under paragraph (1) if the person 
     fails to provide substantial assistance described in that 
     paragraph.
       (e) Consultations.--In developing, publishing, and 
     maintaining rules under subsection (b)(1), the independent 
     anti-doping organization referred to in subsection (a) may 
     consult with State racing commissions, host racing 
     associations, horsemen's groups, and other interested 
     persons.
       (f) Transition Rule With Respect to Furosemide.--During the 
     2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the independent anti-doping organization referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall permit the use of furosemide in a horse 
     participating in a horserace described in subsection (a) if--
       (1) the horse is 3 years old or older; and
       (2) the use of furosemide--
       (A) complies with the requirements of the document entitled 
     ``ARCI-011-020 Medications and Prohibited Substances'' 
     published by the Association of Racing Commissioners 
     International, Inc.; and
       (B) is within the context of a veterinarian-client-patient 
     relationship.
       (g) Designation of Organization.--The independent anti-
     doping organization designated pursuant to section 701 of the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 
     2006 (21 U.S.C. 2001) shall serve as the independent anti-
     doping organization referred to in subsection (a).

     SEC. 4. CONSENT REQUIRED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF INTERSTATE OFF-
                   TRACK WAGERS.

       (a) In General.--On and after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, a host racing association may conduct a horserace 
     that is the subject of an interstate off-track wager, and an 
     interstate off-track wager may be accepted by an off-track 
     betting system, only if consent is obtained from the 
     independent anti-doping organization referred to in section 
     3(a).
       (b) Requirement for Agreement.--
       (1) In general.--A host racing association shall obtain the 
     consent required by subsection (a) of the independent anti-
     doping organization referred to in section 3(a) pursuant to 
     an agreement entered into between the association and the 
     organization that specifies the terms and conditions relating 
     to such consent, including--
       (A) compliance with the rules published under section 3(b); 
     and
       (B) payments to the organization to defray the costs of 
     carrying out the duties of the organization under this Act.
       (2) Defrayal of costs.--The independent anti-doping 
     organization referred to in section 3(a) shall ensure that 
     all of the costs incurred by the organization in carrying out 
     the duties of the organization under this Act are defrayed 
     pursuant to agreements entered into under paragraph (1).

                          ____________________