[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1224-1238]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Allard, 
        Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Brownback, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Gregg, Mr. 
        Hatch, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Levin, Mr. McCain, Mr. 
        McConnell, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Thompson, 
        and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 271. A bill to provide for education flexibility partnerships; 
read the first time.


           the education flexibility partnership act of 1999

 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with my 
colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, The Education Flexibility 
Partnership Act of 1999. This bipartisan measure will expand the 
immensely popular and highly successful Ed-Flex program to all 50 
states in the country. As you may know, Ed-Flex is currently a 
demonstration program, available only to 12 states. Under the Frist-
Wyden bill, all states would have the option to participate in the 
program.
  States and localities have waged a war on poor student performance 
and they need our help. For too long, Washington has dictated a plan 
riddled with red tape and regulation. Stagnant student performance has 
been the result. The longer a child is in an American school, the more 
his math and science skills deteriorate compared to the skills of his 
international peers, according to the Third International Math and 
Science Study (TIMSS). Out of 21 countries, the United States ranked 
19th in math and 16th in science for twelfth graders.
  To help our states and localities, Washington must give them the 
flexibility that they need in order to find creative solutions that 
make sense in their own communities. When localities find ideas that 
work, the federal government should either get out of the way or lend a 
helping hand. The last thing that our schools need is more bureaucracy 
and federal intrusion. Education dollars should be spent in the 
classroom, not in the front office.
  Ed-Flex frees states from the burden of unnecessary, time-consuming 
Washington regulations, so long as states are complying with certain 
core federal principles, such as civil rights, and so long as the 
states are making progress toward improving their students' results. 
Under the Ed-Flex program, the Department of Education delegates to the 
states its power to grant individual school districts temporary waivers 
from certain federal requirements that interfere with state and local 
efforts to improve education. To be eligible, a state must waive its 
own regulations on schools. It must also hold schools accountable for 
results. The 12 states that currently participate in Ed-Flex have used 
this flexibility to allow school districts to innovate and better use 
federal resources to improve student outcomes.
  For instance, the Phelps Luck Elementary School in Howard County, 
Maryland used its waiver to provide one-on-one tutoring for reading 
students who have the greatest need in grades 1-5. They also used their 
waiver to lower the average student/teacher ratio in mathematics and 
reading from 25/1 to 12/1. By granting localities more flexibility to 
use resources already allocated, Ed-Flex allows local decision-makers 
to decide for themselves how to best tailor federal programs to meet 
the needs of their own schools.
  As the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Task Force on 
Education, formed by Budget Chairman Pete Domenici, I heard first-hand 
accounts of the success of the Ed-Flex program and the need for 
flexibility for our states that are overburdened by federal 
requirements. Secretary Riley told the Task Force that, ``through our 
Ed-Flex demonstration initiative, we are giving State-level officials 
broad authority to waive federal requirements that present an obstacle 
to innovation in their schools.'' The Department of Education further 
notes, ``Ed-Flex can help participating states and local school 
districts use federal funds in ways that provide maximum support for 
effective school reform based on challenging academic standards for all 
students.''
  Recent GAO reports have questioned whether Ed-Flex has addressed or 
can address all of the concerns that local schools and school districts 
have regarding the regulatory and administrative requirements that 
federal education programs impose. GAO is definitive in its answer: Ed-
Flex hasn't and it won't. We certainly do not believe that Ed-Flex is a 
panacea to our nation's educational system's woes. Nor

[[Page 1225]]

do we believe that the complexity, redundancy and rigidity that are the 
unfortunate hallmarks of our federal education effort will magically 
disappear. But it is a good first step. Not all states will be as 
active with Ed-Flex waiver authority as front-runners like Texas, but 
they all deserve the opportunity to try.
  The time has come for this common sense reform. In the Senate, the 
Ed-Flex expansion bill had 21 bipartisan cosponsors last year. The 
Labor Committee passed the bill by a vote of 17-1. In the House, 
Representatives Castle (R-DE) and Roemer (D-IN) introduced companion 
legislation with 25 House cosponsors. The National Governors' 
Association has made Ed-Flex expansion a top priority and both the 
White House and the Department of Education support Ed-Flex expansion. 
Last year, there obviously was a convergence of support from all 
corners; nevertheless, the usual end-of-the-session morass claimed Ed-
Flex as one of its many victims.
  We must do better in the 106th Congress. Ed-Flex is a bi-partisan 
proposal with broad-based support. Even so, Ed-Flex expansion will 
again face an uphill battle. Some in Congress want to delay real reform 
by attaching poison pill amendments or waiting for the reauthorization 
of the far-reaching Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 
scheduled for 1999. If history is any guide, Congress will be lucky to 
have completed the reauthorization process for K-12 education programs 
two years from now. Ed-Flex expansion should not get bogged down in 
this partisan embroglio. Delay is not the answer to our education 
crisis. The jury is in on Ed-Flex. Let's not allow partisanship to stop 
us from improving the public education system. We hope that Congress 
will rise to meet the challenge of helping our children sooner rather 
than later.
  Mr. President, I believe that passage of this legislation is a strong 
first step for improving our public education system. Let's give states 
and localities the flexibility that they need to address the many needs 
of our students. I am hopeful that we will move this bill quickly in a 
bipartisan way. I strongly urge passage of this bill.
 Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the 
Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 with my colleague Senator 
Bill Frist of Tennessee. This bill encourages innovation in our schools 
by expanding the Ed-Flex demonstration program from a handful of states 
to all states. Mr. President, education dollars should be spent in the 
classroom, not the front office. That common-sense philosophy is at the 
heart of an exciting new education program known as education 
flexibility, or Ed-Flex.
  In the raging debate over the federal government's role in education, 
Ed-Flex defines a third-way approach--allowing local schools to receive 
federal assistance while being freed from the burden of unnecessary, 
time-consuming Washington resolutions. Local school boards, principals, 
teachers, and parents have the flexibility to find creative solutions 
that make sense in their own communities, and are held accountable for 
achieving real results. Ed-Flex accomplishes this by giving states the 
authority to grant waivers from federal regulations to individual 
schools or local education agencies, in exchange for agreeing to meet 
specific targets for student improvement.
  In other words, a school that agrees to meet high standards can 
receive federal aid without having to worry about complying with the 
hundreds and hundreds of pages of regulations, and filling out the 
voluminous forms that usually go along with that assistance. Virtually 
every school district in the country, for example, employs staff whose 
job is to make sure that the schools are in compliance with rules for 
the government's Title I program. Ed-Flex could allow school districts 
to use fewer compliance officers and hire more teachers instead.
  Ed-Flex is currently being tried as a pilot program in a dozen states 
around the country, and the results have been impressive:
  Oregon community colleges and high schools work together to 
streamline their vocational education programs. As a result, more 
students are learning technical skills, such as computer programming, 
and graduating from high school.
  The Phelps Luck Elementary School in Howard County, Maryland has used 
its waiver to provide one-on-one tutoring for reading students who have 
the greatest need in grades 1-5. They also used their waiver to lower 
the average student/teacher ratio in mathematics and reading from 25 to 
1 to 12 to 1.
  Achievement scores from Texas, the state which has implemented Ed-
Flex most broadly, confirm that Ed-Flex can improve academic 
performance. After only two years of implementation, preliminary 
statewide results on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills show that 
districts with Ed-Flex waivers outperformed districts that didn't take 
advantage of the program by a full three points in reading and more 
than two in math.
  For African-American students, the gains were even greater. At 
Westlawn Elementary School in LaMarque, Texas, for example, African-
American students improved almost 23% over their 1996 math test scores, 
after the school put an Ed-Flex waiver into practice.
  Ed-Flex will help schools raise achievement levels by giving them a 
powerful weapon to cut through the red tape that sometimes keeps 
teachers and principals tied up in knots. This frees them up to focus 
full time on giving children the best possible education. The Ohio 
Department of Education wrote in an annual report that Ed-Flex helps 
create an environment which ``encourages creativity, thoughtful 
planning, and innovation.'' And in Oregon, the nation's first Ed-Flex 
state, the program has brought ``greater flexibility and better 
coordination to federal education programs.''
  At the heart of all this innovation is accountability. Schools need 
to demonstrate that what they are doing produces results. If it 
doesn't, Ed-Flex provides an opportunity to move on to something else 
that might be more effective. Parents and taxpayers should rightfully 
demand that schools be responsible for meeting the goals that are set 
for them.
  Last year, Senator Frist and I introduced legislation to expand Ed-
Flex nationwide, and broaden its use in the states where it's already 
in place. With the support of a bipartisan group of 21 cosponsors, the 
bill passed almost unanimously through the Senate Labor Committee. In 
the House, Representatives Castle and Roemer introduced a companion 
bill with 25 cosponsors. Unfortunately, the bills fell victim to 
legislative gridlock at the end of the 105th Congress. But today, at 
the beginning of the 106th Congress, we are reintroducing the bill with 
an eye toward its passage. The National Governors' Association has made 
expansion of Ed-Flex a top priority, and both President Clinton and 
Education Secretary Riley have announced their support for Ed-Flex. The 
time for action is near.
  Every hour school officials spend filling out a government form is an 
hour that could be spent giving special attention to a child. Every 
dollar spent on complying with unproductive mandates from Washington, 
DC, is a dollar that could be spent on something that works. With a 
good education more important than ever, and confidence in our schools 
at an all-time low, it's time to try something different. Flexibility 
and accountability can be the key to a brighter future. Congress should 
expand Ed-Flex, and allow a flurry of creativity across our entire 
country to give our children a brighter future.
 Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator 
Frist and others today to introduce the ``Education Flexibility 
Partnership Act of 1999.'' I commend the Senator from Tennessee for his 
leadership on this proposal, which will allow states to waive various 
federal education regulations and give them more flexibility and 
authority over their use of federal resources to educate their 
students.
  Mr. President, we all want our nation's children to get a first-class 
education that boosts student achievement and elevates them to 
excellence. Our role at the federal level should be to help states and 
local school districts

[[Page 1226]]

provide the best education possible for their students.
  Unfortunately, many of our federal education programs, while well-
intentioned, are steeped in so many rules and regulations that states 
and local schools consume precious time and resources to stay in 
compliance with the federal programs. As a former governor, I have 
experienced first-hand the frustration of having to jump through a lot 
of federal hoops to obtain and keep federal dollars designated for 
various programs. I have also heard of examples around the country 
demonstrating this same problem I experienced.
  For example, a 1990 study found that 52% of the paperwork required of 
an Ohio school district was related to participation in federal 
programs, while federal dollars provided less than 5% of total 
education funding in Ohio. In Florida, 374 employees administer $8 
billion in state funds. However, 297 state employees are needed to 
oversee only $1 billion in federal funds--six times as many per dollar.
  The Federal Department of Education requires over 48.6 million hours 
worth of paperwork to receive federal dollars. This bureaucratic maze 
takes up to 35% of every federal education dollar. Clearly, states and 
local school districts need relief from excessive federal regulations, 
which take away precious dollars and teacher time from our children.
  The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 will help to 
relieve administrative burdens and save federal resources by providing 
states with more flexibility to operate their education programs 
through the waiver of certain federal and state regulations. The bill 
expands to all states the highly successful Education Flexibility 
Partnership Demonstration Program that is currently operating in 12 
states and is producing great results. This legislation will help to 
reduce excessive bureaucratic oversight over education and return more 
control to the state and local levels.
  Again, I appreciate Senator Frist's dedication to providing greater 
flexibility to the states and I look forward to working with him to 
pass the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. We in Congress 
should support proposals--such as this one--that return decision-making 
authority back to state and local decision-makers, where parents, 
teachers, and school boards have the greatest opportunity to 
participate in determining priorities, developing curriculum, and 
making other important education-related decisions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 273. A bill for the relief of Oleg Rasulyevich Rafikova, Alfia 
Fanilevna Rafikova, Evgenia Olegovna Rafikova, and Ruslan Khamitovich 
Yagudin; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                          private relief bill

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am introducing a private 
relief bill that provides permanent residency to Oleg Rasulyevich 
Rafikova, Alfia Fanilevna Rafikova, and their children, Evgenia 
Olegovna Rafikova and Ruslan Khamitovich Yagudin, who without this 
legislation, would have to return to Russia and face possible threats 
of blackmail and kidnaping.
  The Rafikova family came to the United States on August 28, 1997, 
from Ufa, Russia, on a visitor's visa to receive their inheritance from 
Alfia's uncle, the famous ballet dancer, Rudolf Nureyev. The Rafikova's 
now fear returning to their home country because they fear that the 
local Mafia would try to extort their inheritance from them.
  According to Alfia, everything changed for the family in Ufa, Russia, 
when the local media announced the death of her uncle, Rudolf Nureyev 
and exaggerated the amount of her inheritance and falsely made 
assertions that the family already had the money. Alfia claims that she 
and her husband started getting harassing phone calls, threats of 
kidnaping their children for ransom, and death threats. The events 
escalated to a day when they were robbed of everything except the 
clothes they were wearing.
  Alfia's inheritance is substantial enough that she and her family 
will not be a public charge. In fact, Alfia and her husband Oleg, who 
is a chef by training, would like to start a restaurant in San 
Francisco, providing jobs for Americans. Alfia's two children are 
attending school in San Francisco and look forward to the day they 
could call the United States their new home.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation so we can give 
the Rafikova family a chance to restart their life in the United 
States.
  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:

                                 S. 273

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR OLEG RASULYEVICH 
                   RAFIKOVA, ALFIA FANILEVNA RAFIKOVA, EVGENIA 
                   OLEGOVNA RAFIKOVA, AND RUSLAN KHAMITOVICH 
                   YAGUDIN.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Oleg 
     Rasulyevich Rafikova, Alfia Fanilevna Rafikova, Evgenia 
     Olegovna Rafikova, and Ruslan Khamitovich Yagudin shall be 
     eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 
     of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
     immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for 
     adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Oleg Rasulyevich Rafikova, 
     Alfia Fanilevna Rafikova, Evgenia Olegovna Rafikova, or 
     Ruslan Khamitovich Yagudin enters the United States before 
     the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he or she 
     shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 
     shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of 
     status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
     Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application 
     for issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for 
     adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees within 2 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting 
     of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Oleg 
     Rasulyevich Rafikova, Alfia Fanilevna Rafikova, Evgenia 
     Olegovna Rafikova, and Ruslan Khamitovich Yagudin, the 
     Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
     reduce by 4, during the current or next following fiscal 
     year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
     available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
     under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that 
     are made available to natives of the country of the aliens' 
     birth under section 202(e) of such Act.
      By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 274. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 
the maximum taxable income for the 15-percent rate bracket; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                  middle class tax relief act of 1999

 Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today, along with 
Senators McCain and Torricelli, to introduce the Middle Class Tax 
Relief Act of 1999. The Senate's agenda on tax relief is premised on 
the realization that political leaders need to create policies that 
unleash the creativity, innovation and expertise of the American 
people. We should reject Washington-based solutions and instead, seek 
to move power, money and decision-making back to the people of this 
nation.
  Now is the time for us to consider sweeping middle class tax relief. 
This tax relief proposal accomplishes several goals. First, it directs 
the vast majority of the relief to those who feel the tax squeeze the 
most: middle-income taxpayers.
  Second, because it is across-the-board relief, every middle class 
taxpayer wins. Every American earning $25,000 in taxable income or more 
would see relief. Estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation show 
that approximately 29 million taxpayers would see tax relief this year.
  Third, it provides modest marriage penalty relief without adding 
complexity to the tax code.
  Fourth, it is a realistic proposal that is also entirely consistent 
with the

[[Page 1227]]

long-term goal of achieving a flatter, simpler tax code.
  My proposal, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act, achieves these goals by 
raising the roof on the 15% individual income tax bracket. In other 
words, it returns middle class taxpayers to the lowest individual 
income bracket. It would increase the income threshold between the 15% 
and the 28% income tax rate brackets by $10,000 for married couples--
$5,000 for singles--over a five year period.
  If the Middle Class Tax Relief Act were fully in place today, it 
would mean that a family of four who earned $71,250 or less would be 
taxed at the 15% rate. It would mean such families could expect up to 
$1,300 in tax relief annually. That amounts to increasing their take-
home pay by more than $100 a month and that is real relief.
  In the coming weeks, a great deal of discussion will focus on 
providing the American people with the tax relief they need and 
deserve, and how that is to be accomplished. There are a number of 
proposals providing tax relief, some of which I support. However, I 
believe the Middle Class Tax Relief Act will be successful ultimately 
because we can actually achieve it during this Congress. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in this effort.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor The Middle 
Class Tax Relief Act of 1999 with Senators Coverdell and Senator 
Torricelli. This bill would deliver sweeping tax relief to lower- and 
middle-income taxpayers. The bill incrementally increases the number of 
individuals who pay the lowest tax rate, which is 15%. If this bill had 
been law in 1998, approximately millions of taxpayers now in the 28% 
tax-bracket would have paid taxes at the 15% rate. In addition, this 
bill significantly lessens the effect of one of the Tax Code's most 
inequitable provisions: the Marriage Penalty.
   Mr. President, before I proceed, I want to congratulate Senator 
Coverdell for his leadership and his tireless work in crafting this 
historic legislation. This bill recognizes the need to maintain the 
momentum toward fundamental tax reform evidenced by the Taxpayer Relief 
Act of 1997.
  This bill is the only major tax relief proposal focused directly on 
addressing the middle-class tax squeeze. According to preliminary 
estimates by the Tax Foundation, 29 million taxpayers would benefit 
from this broad-based, middle-class tax relief in 1998 alone.
   Mr. President, I support this legislation because: First, it is a 
step toward further reform; second, it helps ordinary middle-class 
families who are struggling to make ends meet without asking the 
government to help out, and third, it promotes future economic 
prosperity by increasing the amount of money taxpayers have available 
for their own savings and investment.
  It is essential that we provide American families with relief from 
the excessive rate of taxation that saps job growth and robs them of 
the opportunity to provide for their needs and save for the future. 
Over a five-year period, this bill would deliver sweeping tax relief to 
middle-class taxpayers by increasing the number of individuals who pay 
the lowest tax rate. In addition, this bill is simple, and it 
calculates tax relief based upon income alone, not on factors such as 
the number of school-age children.
  This bill benefits our citizens in several ways. It focuses tax 
relief on the individuals who feel the tax squeeze the most: lower- and 
middle-income taxpayers. Under this bill, unmarried individuals will be 
able to make $35,000 and married individuals can make $70,000, and 
still be in the lowest tax bracket.
  This measure also results in taxpayers being able to keep more of the 
money they earn. This extra income will allow individuals to save and 
invest more. Increased savings and investment are key to sustaining our 
current economic growth.
  In sum, the measure is a win for individuals, and a win for America 
as a whole. Millions of Americans would realize some tax savings from 
this legislation. Citizens will be able to keep more of what they earn, 
which will ensure that Americans have more of the resources they need 
to invest in their own individual futures, and America's future.
  Mr. President, on a broader scale, I believe we should abandon our 
existing tax code altogether and create a new system. This new system 
should have one tax rate, which taxes income only one time. This system 
should also reduce the time to prepare tax returns from days to 
minutes, and the expense to prepare tax returns from thousands of 
dollars to pennies.
  The 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act was a step in the right direction to 
provide tax relief to lower- and middle-income families. The Middle 
Class Tax Relief Act of 1999 represents an important further step 
toward a flatter, fairer tax system, which also provides immediate tax 
relief for hard-working Americans and families.
   Mr. President, on behalf of the millions of Americans in need of 
relief from over-taxation, I urge my colleagues to support this 
important measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 275. A bill for the relief of Suchada Kwong; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


                          PRIVATE RELIEF BILL

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today, a 
legislation that previously passed the Senate by unanimous consent but 
failed to be enacted because the bill was not considered by the House 
during last Congress.
  This legislation provides permanent residency to Suchada Kwong, a 
recently widowed young mother of a U.S. citizen child who faces the 
devastation of being separated from her child and family here in the 
U.S.
  Suchada Kwong's U.S. citizen husband, Jimmy Kwong, was tragically 
killed in an automobile accident in June of 1996, leaving a 3-month-old 
U.S.-born son and his 29-year-old bride.
  Because current law does not allow Suchada to adjust her status to 
permanent residency without her husband, Suchada now faces deportation.
  Suchada and Jimmy Kwong met in Bangkok, Thailand, through a mutual 
friend in 1993. He communicated with her frequently by phone and 
visited her every time he was in Bangkok. They fell in love and were 
married in September 1995 and Suchada gave birth to Ryan Stephen Kwong 
in May 1996.
  Suchada was supposed to have her INS interview on August 15, 1996. 
However, Jimmy was killed in an accident in June, less than 3 weeks 
after his son was born and 2 months short of the INS interview. Now, 
because the petitioner is deceased, Suchada is ineligible to adjust her 
status. While the immigration law provides for widows of U.S. citizens 
to self-petition, that provision is only available for people who have 
been married for over 2 years.
  Suchada's deportation will not only cause hardship to her and her 
young child but to Suchada's mother-in-law, Mrs. Kwong, who faces 
losing her grandson, only a short time after she lost her only son.
  Mrs. Kwong is elderly, and though she is financially capable, could 
not care for her grandson herself. Mrs. Kwong is proud to be self-
supporting, having owned and worked in a small business until her 
retirement. The family has never used public assistance, and through 
Jimmy's job, the family has sufficient resources to support Suchada and 
Ryan. It would also be difficult for Suchada as a single mother in 
Thailand. Here in the United States, she has the support of Mrs. Kwong 
and their church.
  Suchada was previously granted voluntary departure for one year on 
October 1996 to explore other options or prepare to leave the United 
States. During that time period, Suchada and her family have explored 
all options but failed. Now, the voluntary departure period has expired 
and Suchada must leave the country immediately, leaving behind her 
young child and her family here in the U.S.
  Suchada has done everything she could to become a permanent resident 
of this country--except for the tragedy of her husband's death 2 months 
before she could become a permanent resident. I hope you support this 
bill so that we can help Suchada rebuild her life in the United States.

[[Page 1228]]

  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:

                                 S. 275

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SUCHADA KWONG.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Suchada 
     Kwong shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or 
     for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence upon filing an application 
     for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such 
     Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Suchada Kwong enters the 
     United States before the filing deadline specified in 
     subsection (c), she shall be considered to have entered and 
     remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be 
     eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
     Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the applications 
     for issuance of immigrant visas or the applications for 
     adjustment of status are filed with appropriate fees within 2 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting 
     of an immigrant visa or permanent residence of Suchada Kwong, 
     the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
     reduce by one, during the current or next following fiscal 
     year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
     available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
     under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that 
     are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
     birth under section 202(e) of such Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 276. A bill for the relief of Sergio Lozano, Fauricio Lozano and 
Ana Lozano; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                          Private Relief Bill

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today a 
legislation that previously passed the Senate by unanimous consent but 
failed to be enacted because it was never considered by the House 
during last Congress.
  The bill provides permanent resident status to three children, Sergio 
(18 years old), Fauricio (16 years old), and Ana Lozano (15 years old) 
who now face deportation because they lost their mother in 1997 and the 
immigration law prohibits permanent legal residency to minor children 
under the age of twenty-one without their parents.
  The Lozano children face a dire situation without this legislation 
since despite the fact that they came into the country legally, they 
could be deported because they were orphaned.
  The children lived with their mother, Ana Ruth Lozano, until February 
1997 when she died of complications developed from typhoid fever. Since 
their mother's death, the children have been living with their closest 
relative, their U.S. citizen grandmother, who currently lives in Los 
Angeles, California.
  Without their mother, these children can be deported by the INS 
despite the fact the children have no family who will take care of them 
in El Salvador except their estranged father who cannot be located by 
the family.
  Without this bill, the children will most likely be sent to an 
orphanage in El Salvador. Here in the U.S., the children have their 
U.S. citizen grandmother and uncles who will give them a loving home.
  I have previously sought administrative relief for the Lozano 
children by asking the INS District Office in Los Angeles and 
Commissioner Meissner if any humanitarian exemptions could be made in 
their case. INS has told my staff that there is nothing further they 
can do administratively and a private relief bill may be the only way 
to protect the children from deportation.
  I urge all the members to support this bill so that we can help the 
Lozano children rebuild their lives in the United States.
  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:

                                 S. 276

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SERGIO LOZANO, 
                   FAURICIO LOZANO AND ANA LOZANO.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Sergio 
     Lozano, Fauricio Lozano and Ana Lozano shall be eligible for 
     issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to 
     that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
     upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa 
     under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to 
     lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--if Sergio Lozano, Fauricio 
     Lozano and Ana Lozano enter the United States before the 
     filing deadline specified in subsection (c), they shall be 
     considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, 
     if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 
     under section 245 of the Immigration and nationality Act as 
     of the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
     Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the applications 
     for issuance of immigrant visas or the applications for 
     adjustment of status are filed with appropriate fees within 2 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting 
     of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Sergio Lozano, 
     Fauricio Lozano and Ana Lozano, the Secretary of State shall 
     instruct the proper officer to reduce by three, during the 
     current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
     immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 
     country of the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total 
     number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 
     of the country of the aliens' birth under section 202(e) of 
     such Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 278. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey 
certain lands to the county of Rio Arriba, New Mexico; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.


         the rio arriba, new mexico land conveyance act of 1999

 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce 
legislation that will provide long-term benefits for the people of Rio 
Arriba County, New Mexico. In November of 1997, I introduced the Rio 
Arriba, New Mexico Land Conveyance Act of 1998. The bill would have 
transferred unwanted federal land and facilities to a community 
desperately seeking the ability to grow. The bill had bipartisan 
support, and created a win-win situation. After incorporating suggested 
changes from the Administration, the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee reported the bill unanimously in May 1998, and the 
Senate passed S. 1510 on July 17, 1998.
  Unfortunately, despite the logic and benefit of the legislation, the 
bill failed to pass the House of Representatives in the waning days of 
the 105th Congress. I am hoping that this body can promptly pass this 
needed legislation again, and that the House will agree that this type 
of transfer is logical and should be quickly passed since it provides 
facilities and lands for community use while removing unwanted and 
unused land and facilities from federal ownership.
  Over one-third of the land in New Mexico is owned by the federal 
government, and therefore finding appropriate sites for community and 
educational purposes can be difficult. More than seventy percent of Rio 
Arriba County is in federal ownership. Communities in this area have 
found themselves unable to grow or find available property necessary to 
provide local services. This legislation allows for transfer by the 
Secretary of the Interior real property and improvements at an 
abandoned and surplus ranger station for the Carson National Forest to 
Rio Arriba County. The site is known as the Old Coyote Administrative 
Site, near the small town of Coyote, New Mexico.
  The Coyote Station will continue to be used for public purposes for 
the County, potentially including a community center and a fire 
substation. Some of the buildings will also be available for the County 
to use for storage and repair of road maintenance equipment and other 
County vehicles.

[[Page 1229]]

  Mr. President, the Forest Service has determined that this site is of 
no further use to them, since they have recently completed construction 
of a new administrative facility for the Coyote Ranger District. The 
Forest Service reported to the General Services Administration that the 
improvements on the site were considered surplus, and would be 
available for disposal under their administrative procedures. At this 
particular site, however, the land on which the facilities have been 
built is withdrawn public domain land, under the jurisdiction of the 
Bureau of Land Management.
  I worked closely in the last Congress with the Forest Service and 
Bureau of Land Management to make this transfer a reality. The 
Administration is supportive of the legislation and the changes made to 
the bill at their suggestion. Since neither the Bureau of Land 
Management nor the Forest Service have any interest in maintaining 
Federal ownership of this land and the surplus facilities, and Rio 
Arriba County desperately needs them, passage of this bill is a win-win 
situation for both the federal government, New Mexico, and the people 
of Rio Arriba County. I look forward to prompt passage of this 
legislation again in the Senate, the House's agreement, and 
Presidential signature as soon as possible.
  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. 278

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

     SECTION 1. OLD COYOTE ADMINISTRATIVE SITE.

       (a) Conveyance of Property.--Not later than one year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Interior (herein ``the Secretary'') shall convey to the 
     County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico (herein ``the County''), 
     subject to the terms and conditions stated in subsection (b), 
     all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     the land (including all improvements on the land) known as 
     the ``Old Coyote Administrative Site'' located approximately 
     \1/2\ mile east of the Village of Coyote, New Mexico, on 
     State Road 96, comprising one tract of 130.27 acres (as 
     described in Public Land Order 3730), and one tract of 276.76 
     acres (as described in Executive Order 4599).
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--
       (1) Consideration for the conveyance described in 
     subsection (a) shall be--
       (A) an amount that is consistent with the special pricing 
     program for Governmental entities under the Recreation and 
     Public Purposes Act; and
       (B) an agreement between the Secretary and the County 
     indemnifying the Government of the United States from all 
     liability of the Government that arises from the property.
       (2) The lands conveyed by this Act shall be used for public 
     purposes. If such lands cease to be used for public purposes, 
     at the option of the United States, such lands will revert to 
     the United States.
       (c) Land Withdrawals.--Land withdrawals under Public Land 
     Order 3730 and Executive Order 4599 as extended in the 
     Federal Register on May 25, 1989 (54 F.R. 22629) shall be 
     revoked simultaneous with the conveyance of the property 
     under subsection (a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Helms):
  S. 279. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
eliminate the earnings test for individuals who have attained 
retirement age; to the Committee on Finance.


            the senior citizens freedom to work act of 1999

 Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator John McCain as 
an original cosponsor of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act of 
1999. Senator McCain's legislation would give seniors relief from the 
Social Security earnings limitation contained in current law.
  During the 1992 presidential campaign, President Clinton said that 
America must ``lift the Social Security earnings test limitation so 
that older Americans are able to help rebuild our economy and create a 
better future for us all.'' I could not agree more. Yet, despite 6 
years of urging from many members of Congress and millions of 
Americans, the President appears reluctant to make good on this 
campaign promise. So, it has fallen to Senator McCain to pursue this 
issue, as he has for several years.
  The Social Security Earnings Limitation (SSEL) was created during the 
Depression in order to move older workers out of the labor force and to 
create job opportunities for younger workers. Obviously, this situation 
no longer exists.
  In an effort to address this problem, legislation was enacted in 
1996, which I supported, which will raise the Social Security earnings 
limitation to $30,000 by 2002. However, I believe we must do more. 
Senator McCain's bill would repeal the entire limitation immediately.
  Currently, under the SSEL, senior citizens aged 62 to 64 lose $1 in 
benefits for every $2 they earn over the $9,600 limit. Seniors aged 65-
99 lose $1 in benefits for every $3 they earn over $15,500 annually. 
When combined with federal and state taxes, a senior citizen earning 
just over $14,000 per year faces an effective marginal tax rate of 56 
percent.
  However, when combined with the President's tax on Social Security 
benefits passed in 1993, a senior's marginal tax rate can reach 88 
percent--twice the rate millionaires pay!
  Some lawmakers apparently forget the Social Security is not an 
insurance policy intended to offset some unforeseen future occurrence; 
rather, it is a pension with a fixed sum paid regularly to the retirees 
who made regular contributions throughout their working lives. Social 
Security is a planned savings program to supplement income during an 
individual's retirement years.
  I believe no American should be discouraged from working. Such a 
policy violates the principles of self-reliance and personal 
responsibility on which America was founded. Regrettably, American's 
senior citizens re severely penalized for attempting to be financially 
independent. When senior citizens work to pay for the high cost of 
health care, pharmaceuticals and housing, they are penalized like no 
other group in our society.
  Senior citizens possess a wealth of experience and expertise acquired 
through decades of productivity in the work place. Companies hiring 
seniors have noted their strong work ethic, punctuality, flexibility. 
Their participation in the workforce can add billions of dollars to our 
Nation's economy. To remain competitive in the global marketplace, 
America needs for its senior citizens to be involved in the economy: 
Working, producing, and paying taxes to the federal government. A law 
which discourages this is not just bad law, it's wrong--and it hurts 
not only seniors but all Americans.
  I will work with Senator McCain in the 106th Congress to enact this 
legislation which will lift the unjust and counterproductive burden 
from the backs of our senior citizens.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kyl and 
Helms to introduce again this year the Senior Citizen's Freedom to Work 
Act. Our bill would fully repeal the erroneous Social Security Earnings 
test.
  Since coming to the Senate in 1987, I have been working to eliminate 
the discriminatory and unfair earnings test.
  I am pleased that in 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton 
signed into law my bill, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act. This 
legislation took a step in the right direction by increasing the 
earning threshold for senior citizens from $11,520 to $30,000 by the 
year 2002. Now it is time to eliminate the unjust earnings test in its 
entirety.
  Most Americans are shocked and appalled when they discover that older 
Americans are penalized for working. Nobody should be penalized for 
working or discouraged from engaging in work. Yet, this is exactly what 
the Social Security earnings test does to our nation's senior citizens. 
The Social Security earnings test punishes Americans between the ages 
of 65 and 70 for their attempts to remain productive after retirement.
  The Social Security earnings test mandates that, for every $3 earned 
by a retiree over the established limit of $15,500 in 1999, the retiree 
loses $1 in Social Security benefits. This is clearly age 
discrimination, and it is very wrong. Due to this cap on earnings, our 
senior citizens, many of whom exist on fixed, low-incomes, are burdened 
with a

[[Page 1230]]

33.3 percent tax on their earned income. When this is combined with 
Federal, State, local, and other Social Security taxes, it amounts to 
an outrageous 55 to 65 percent tax bite or and even higher.
  This earnings limit is punitive and serves as a tremendous 
disincentive to work. An individual who is struggling to make ends meet 
on approximately $15,500 a year should not be faced with an effective 
marginal tax rate which exceeds 55 percent.
  The Social Security earnings test is a relic of the Great Depression, 
designed to move older people out of the workforce and create 
employment for younger individuals. This is an archaic policy and 
should no longer be our goal. Many senior citizens can make a 
significant contribution, and often their knowledge and experience 
compliments or exceeds that of younger employees. Tens of millions of 
Americans are over the age of 65, and together they have over a billion 
years of cumulative work experience. These individuals have valuable 
experience to offer our society, and we need them.
  In addition experts predict a labor shortage when the ``baby boom'' 
generation ages, and it is evident that employers will have to develop 
new sources of labor as our elderly population continues to grow much 
faster than the number of workers entering the workforce. According to 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ``retaining older workers is a priority 
in labor intensive industries, and will become even more critical as we 
approach the year 2000.'' It seems counterproductive and foolish to 
keep willing, diligent workers out of the American workforce. Our 
country must continue to support pro-work, not pro-welfare policies.
  More importantly, many of the older Americans penalized by the 
earnings test need to work in order to cover their basic expenses: 
Health care, housing and food. Many seniors do not have significant 
savings or a private pension. For this reason, low-income workers are 
particularly hard-hit by the earnings test.
  It is important to note that wealthy seniors, who have lucrative 
investments, stocks, and substantial savings, are not affected by the 
earnings limit. Their supplemental ``unearned'' income is not subject 
to the earnings threshold. The earnings limit only affects seniors who 
must work and depend on their earned income for survival.
  Finally, let me stress that repealing the burdensome and unfair 
earnings test would not jeopardize the solvency of the Social Security 
funds. Opponents who claim otherwise are engaging in cruel scare 
tactics. The Social Security benefits which working seniors are losing 
due to the earnings test penalty are benefits they have rightfully 
earned by contributing to the system throughout their working years 
before retiring. These are benefits which they should not be losing 
because they are trying to survive by supplementing their Social 
Security income. Furthermore, certain studies indicate that repealing 
the earnings test would actually result in a net increase of $140 
million in federal revenue because more seniors would be earning wages 
and paying income taxes on these wages.
  Mr. President, there is no compelling justification for denying 
economic opportunity to an individual on the basis of age. It is quite 
evident that the earnings test is outdated, unjust and discriminatory.
  I am pleased that this Congress will be focusing on the overall 
structure of the Social Security system and working together for 
solutions which would strengthen the system for the seniors of today 
and tomorrow without placing an unfair burden on working Americans. It 
is absolutely crucial that we include elimination of the unfair 
earnings test in any Social Security bill we enact this year.
  I find it encouraging that President Clinton indicated in his State 
of the Union Address that he is finally ready to address this issue and 
allow seniors the freedom to work without being unfairly penalized. As 
many of my colleagues may recall, this was a campaign initiative of 
President Clinton in 1992 and I am pleased that it appears that we may 
finally have a bipartisan victory for eliminating this unfair penalty 
on working seniors in 1999. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to work with me to get this accomplished for America's seniors.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                      The 60 Plus Association,

                                  Arlington, VA, January 20, 1999.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Congratulations on your legislation to 
     repeal the Social Security earnings test.
       The 60 Plus Association has been a long-time advocate of 
     removing this provision which penalizes those senior citizens 
     who work or want to work while receiving Social Security 
     benefits. It is unfair to penalize them by mandating that for 
     every $3 earned over the established limit (in 1998, a total 
     of $14,500) the senior works, he or she suffers the loss of 
     $1 in Social Security benefits. Seniors are denied by this 
     penalty the opportunity to continue contributing productively 
     to our economy. And it is a case of age discrimination 
     against ambitious seniors, and seniors who need to continue 
     working.
       You demonstrate that you are a real friend of all senior 
     citizens by sponsoring this legislation to repeal the Social 
     Security earnings limit. You may be sure we at the 60 Plus 
     Association will work diligently to support this legislation 
     and hope it will soon be enacted into law.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James L. Martin,
                                                President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 281. A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify that forced 
or indentured labor includes forced or indentured child labor; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                         TARIFF ACT AMENDMENTS

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of S. 281, to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify that forced 
or indentured labor includes forced or indentured child labor be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 281

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

     SECTION 1. FORCED OR INDENTURED CHILD LABOR.

       Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``For purposes of this section, the term `forced labor or/and 
     indentured labor' includes forced or indentured child 
     labor.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 283. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a partial exclusion from gross income for individuals and interest 
received by individuals; to the Committee on Finance.


          THE MIDDLE-INCOME SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT ACT OF 1999

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Middle-
Income Savings and Investment Act of 1999. This bill is designed to 
encourage lower- and middle-income Americans to save and invest more of 
their hard-earned dollars, by allowing taxpayers to earn $200 ($400 for 
joint filers) of interest and dividend income tax-free. This bill also 
lessens the impact of one of the most nefarious aspects of our current 
tax code--double taxation.
  Mr. President, this legislation is important. Consumers can do three 
things with their income: spend it, pay taxes, or save it. 
Unfortunately, Americans are not doing enough of the latter.
  America's personal savings rate is at an all-time low. Furthermore, 
the U.S. national savings rate ranks among the lowest of the G-7 
countries. According to the Department of Commerce, in September 1998, 
the personal savings rate was 0%. In other words, we saved nothing. In 
October 1998, things got worse and our personal savings rate fell to 
-2%. Americans spent more that month than they earned.
  Other countries have high tax rates, but their citizens still manage 
to save more of their hard-earned dollars than most Americans. 
Economists say that this is because many other countries provide a tax 
incentive for small savers by exempting some portion or all of their 
interest or dividend income from tax. In contrast, the U.S. tax code 
taxes the savings twice, once when the individual earns the income, and 
again

[[Page 1231]]

when the small savers earn interest or dividends generated by the 
savings or investments.
  Congress can not place the blame entirely on the American consumer 
for our nation's record low savings rates. Our current tax code 
discourages savings and investment. Income is taxed first when it is 
earned. If the income is spent, then it is not taxed again. However, if 
the income is saved or invested, the returns on the savings are taxed 
once again. Thus, savings and investment are taxed twice.
  The multiple layers of taxation on savings increase the cost of 
savings, which leads to a smaller supply of capital, and a decreased 
personal savings rate. A fairer tax code would not penalize savings 
relative to consumption. This legislation is not a cure for all of the 
ills of our overly complicated burdensome tax code, but it is an 
important step to eradicating the double taxation inherent in our 
antiquated tax code.
  The Middle-Income Savings and Investment Act provides some tax relief 
to taxpayers by allowing individuals to earn up to $200 in interest or 
dividend income tax-free; a married couple could earn up to $400 in 
interest and dividends tax-free. $200 may not sound like much money, 
but it represents an important first step in eliminating the bias 
against savings and investment.
  This legislation would provide tax relief to the majority of 
Americans. However, because of the low $200 and $400 exemption levels, 
this legislation will particularly benefit lower- and middle-income 
taxpayers, and boost savings incentives among non-savers and small-
savers alike. The vast majority of moderate-income savers would not be 
taxed on any of their interest or dividend income under this 
legislation. The Congressional Joint Economic Committee estimates that 
this type of interest and dividend exclusion would affect 57% of all 
taxpayers, with more than 30 million taxpayers not paying any tax on 
interest and dividend income.
  It is vital that we create further incentives to encourage moderate-
income Americans to save and invest more of their hard-earned dollars. 
Policy makers and economists have long been concerned about the 
adequacy of savings in the United States. These fears address both the 
financial well-being of individuals, and the fiscal stability of the 
national economy.
  Increased savings and investment are an essential element of low- to 
moderate-income Americans' financial well-being. Savings impact 
taxpayers' ability to save for emergencies, education, home buying and 
most importantly, for retirement.
  Consumer spending is powering the United States economy at a brisk 
rate of growth, even as we struggle with diminished export sales and 
slumping economies in Asia, Russia, and Latin America. However, as 
demonstrated by the low levels of personal savings in September and 
October of 1998, we are raiding our savings to purchase homes, consumer 
goods, and other products. Consumers cannot raid their wealth forever.
  The recent devaluation of the Brazilian currency and other 
geopolitical instability could result in a potential economic downturn 
in the United States. In the event this does happen, increased personal 
savings will give Americans a financial cushion to weather any 
potential downturn.
  Retirement looms around the corner for many baby boomers. While I am 
confident Congress will ensure that the Social Security trust funds 
will be solvent when the baby boomers retire, Social Security alone may 
not be sufficient to maintain the boomers' current standard of living. 
Personal savings must make up this gap. Since personal savings are at 
an all-time low, it is unlikely that a substantial number of baby 
boomers will have sufficient personal savings to supplement their 
social security benefits to make up this income gap. Tax reform which 
encourages savings and investment can be an important tool to ensure 
that retiring Americans have sufficient personal savings to maintain 
their current standard of living.
  Increased personal savings and investment are also good for the 
nation's fiscal well-being. The money financial institutions lend or 
invest does not grow on trees. This capital comes from the funds 
everyday Americans deposit or invest in these institutions. Thus, 
savings are important because they are a key element of capital 
formation. Capital formation is necessary for economic growth and 
rising wages.
  We must increase the savings rate if we wish to continue our current 
economic expansion. Without savings, it is impossible to build 
factories, purchase equipment, conduct research, or develop technology. 
Savings allow businesses to purchase equipment, and new equipment 
allows factories to be more productive, which in turn raises the income 
of workers and owners.
  This link between savings rates and capital formation is not rocket 
science. Workers are more productive when they are working with modern 
equipment. More productive workers earn higher real wages. Higher real 
wages are the beginning of higher standards of living. But, the key is 
capital. American industry must have access to a readily available 
supply of affordable domestic capital to purchase this productivity 
enhancing equipment.
  The bottom line is that capital formation is necessary for economic 
growth and rising wages. Further incentives for savings and investment 
will increase capital formation. The Middle-Class Savings and 
Investment Act provides a necessary incentive to get low- to moderate-
income Americans to save and invest more.
  At present, America is not suffering from its current savings 
dilemma. However, we must act now to increase the personal savings rate 
to prepare for the challenges of the next millennium.
  Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office estimates a budget 
surplus of $80 billion for fiscal year 1999. Informal estimates by the 
Joint Committee on Taxation indicate that this bill will only cost $15 
billion over 5 years. What better way to use a small portion of the 
surplus than to return it to the American people in the form of much-
needed middle-class tax relief.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 284. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
eliminate the marriage penalty by increasing the standard deduction for 
married individuals filing joint returns to twice the standard 
deduction for unmarried individuals; to the Committee on Finance.


                Marriage Penalty Elimination Act of 1999

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the 
Marriage Penalty Elimination Act of 1999. This bill would deliver 
sweeping tax relief to millions of lower- and middle-income Americans 
by eliminating the marriage penalty. The bill is simple: it 
incrementally increases the standard deduction over a 5-year period, 
until the joint filer's standard deduction is equal to 2 times the 
individual filer's deduction.
  This bill significantly lessens the effect of one of the Tax Code's 
most inequitable provisions, the marriage penalty. Under today's Tax 
Code, the marriage penalty occurs when the sum of the tax liabilities 
of two unmarried individuals filing their own tax returns is less than 
their tax liability would be under a joint return if they were married. 
The Marriage Penalty Elimination Act would allow a married couple to 
claim the same amount of the standard deduction as two individuals. It 
seems logical that a married couple would be eligible to take two times 
the standard deduction that an individual can take. This is not the 
case. Under current law, joint filers are only eligible to take 
approximately 1.67 times the standard deduction of single filers.
  Because CBO has estimated that federal budget surpluses will total 
more than $700 billion over the next 10 years, there could be no better 
time for Congress to focus our attention on relieving the tax burden on 
the American people. There is no better time than now to provide relief 
to the taxpayers who have been overtaxed and overburdened with our 
antiquated tax system.
  Mr. President, as Congress is well aware, it is essential to provide 
relief to the ordinary, hard-working, middle-

[[Page 1232]]

class American families who are struggling to make ends meet. This bill 
focuses directly on lower- and middle-income taxpayers, because the 
disparity between a married couple's standard deduction and an 
unmarried couple's combined standard deduction is most discriminating 
to the lower- and middle-income level taxpayers.
  The current standard deduction for joint returns is currently 1.67 
times that of single returns for tax bracket rates of 15%, 28% and 31%. 
However, the disparity narrows at the 36% bracket for joint filers to 
1.2 times that of individual filers. And, at the highest bracket rate 
of 39.6%, the standard deduction for married and unmarried couples is 
equal. These figures make clear the discrimination that our present Tax 
Code imposes on lower- and middle-income taxpayers.
  This bill would eliminate the unjust disparity between the standard 
deduction afforded a married couple and an unmarried couple. It is 
vital to our Nation that Congress work to foster strength among 
American families. By enacting the Marriage Penalty Elimination Act, 
this Congress would not only be addressing the tax concerns of the 
American people, but also providing an incentive for the American 
family. As the Tax Code is written now, couples are punished with an 
undue financial burden just for being married. In effect, the marriage 
penalty taxes marriage, one of our most fundamental institutions. There 
can be no doubt that this kind of disincentive for marriage is wrong.
  In addition to the overriding moral objection to a marriage penalty, 
there exists a basic question of fairness. Not only is it debilitating 
to our society to penalize those who enter into the sacred institution 
of marriage to create a family, but it is fundamentally unjust to 
impose a greater tax burden on two married people than on two unmarried 
people who live together.
  Mr. President, on behalf of the millions of lower- and middle-income 
American families, I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
  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. 284

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage 
     Penalty Elimination Act of 1999''.
       (b) Elimination of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise 
     expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or 
     repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal 
     of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be 
     considered to be made to a section or other provision of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD 
                   DEDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 63(c) (relating to standard 
     deduction) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) Elimination of marriage penalty for joint filers.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a joint return or a 
     surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), the basic 
     standard deduction under paragraph (2)(A) shall be increased 
     by an amount equal to the applicable percentage of the excess 
     of--
       ``(i) 200 percent of the basic standard deduction in effect 
     for the taxable year under paragraph (2)(C), over
       ``(ii) the basic standard deduction in effect for the 
     taxable year under paragraph (2)(A) (without regard to this 
     paragraph).
       ``(B) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the applicable percentage shall be determined as 
     follows:
The applicable percentage is: in calendar year:
  1999..........................................................20 ....

  2000..........................................................40 ....

  2001..........................................................60 ....

  2002..........................................................80 ....

  2003 and thereafter........................................100.''....

       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 63(c)(2)(A) is amended 
     by inserting ``except as provided in paragraph (7),'' before 
     ``$5,000''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1998.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Durbin, 
        Mr. Cleland, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 285. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
restore the link between the maximum amount of earnings by blind 
individuals permitted without demonstrating ability to engage in 
substantial gainful activity and the exempt amount permitted in 
determining excess earnings under the earnings test; to the Committee 
on Finance.


                   blind persons earnings equity act

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an 
important piece of legislation which would have a tremendous impact on 
the lives of many blind people. This bill restores the 20-year link 
between blind people and senior citizens in regards to the Social 
Security earnings limit which has helped many blind people become self-
sufficient and productive.
  When the Congress passed the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act in 
1996, we unfortunately broke the longstanding linkage in the treatment 
of blind people and seniors under Social Security, which resulted in 
allowing the earnings limit to be raised for seniors only and did not 
give blind people the same opportunity to increase their earnings 
without penalizing their Social Security benefits.
  My intent when I sponsored the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act 
was not to break the link between the blind people and the senior 
population. In 1996, time constraints and fiscal considerations forced 
me to focus solely on raising the unfair and burdensome earnings limit 
for seniors. I am happy to say that the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work 
Act became law in 1996, and the earnings exemption for seniors is being 
raised in annual increments until it reaches $30,000 in the year 2002. 
This law is allowing millions of seniors to continue contributing to 
society as productive workers.
  Now we should work together in the spirit of fairness to ensure that 
this same opportunity is given to the blind population. We should 
provide blind people the opportunity to be productive and ``make it'' 
on their own. We should not continue policies which discourage these 
individuals from working and contributing to society.
  The bill I am introducing today is identical to one I sponsored in 
the last Congress. It would reunite the earnings exemption amount for 
blind people with the exemption amount for senior citizens. If we do 
not reinstate this link, blind people will be restricted to earning 
$14,800 in the year 2002 in order to protect their Social Security 
benefits, compared to the $30,000 which seniors will be permitted to 
earn.
  There are very strong and convincing arguments in favor of 
reestablishing the link between these two groups and increasing the 
earnings limit for blind people.
  First, the earnings test treatment of our blind and senior 
populations has historically been identical. Since 1977, blind people 
and senior citizens have shared the identical earnings exemption 
threshold under Title II of the Social Security Act. Now, senior 
citizens will be given greater opportunity to increase their earnings 
without losing a portion of their Social Security benefits; the blind, 
however, will not have the same opportunity.
  The Social Security earnings test imposes as great a work 
disincentive for blind people as it does for senior citizens. In fact, 
the earnings test probably provides a greater aggregate disincentive 
for blind individuals since many blind beneficiaries are of working age 
(18-65) and are capable of productive work.
  Blindness is often associated with adverse social and economic 
consequences. It is often tremendously difficult for blind individuals 
to find sustained employment or any employment at all, but they do want 
to work. They take great pride in being able to work and becoming 
productive members of society. By linking the blind with seniors in 
1977, Congress provided a great deal of hope and incentive for blind 
people in this country to enter the work force. Now, we are taking that 
hope away from them by not allowing them the same opportunity to 
increase their earnings as senior citizens.

[[Page 1233]]

  Blind people are likely to respond favorably to an increase in the 
earnings test by working more, which will increase their tax payments 
and their purchasing power and allow the blind to make a greater 
contribution to the general economy. In addition, encouraging the blind 
to work and allowing them to work more without being penalized would 
bring additional revenue into the Social Security trust funds as well 
as the Federal Treasury. In short, restoring the link between blind 
people and senior citizens for treatment of Social Security benefits 
would help many blind people become self-sufficient, productive members 
of society.
  I am pleased that this Congress will be focusing on the overall 
structure of the Social Security system and working together for 
solutions which would strengthen the system for seniors of today and 
tomorrow without placing an unfair burden on working Americans. It is 
absolutely crucial that we include raising the earnings test for blind 
individuals as a part of any Social Security bill we enact this year.
  I urge each of my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this important 
measure to restore fair and equitable treatment for our blind citizens 
and to give the blind community increased financial independence. Our 
nation would be better served if we restore equality for the blind and 
provide them with the same freedom, opportunities and fairness as our 
nation's seniors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 286. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to repeal the 
increase in the tax on Social Security benefits; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                      SENIOR CITIZENS' EQUITY ACT

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation to repeal the increase in tax on Social Security benefits. 
As my colleagues know, the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits from 50% to 
85% for Social Security recipients whose threshold incomes exceed 
$34,000 (single) and $44,000 (couples). The legislation I am 
introducing today simply phases out this increase gradually over a 
four-year period. In 1999, the applicable percentage would be 75 
percent; in 2000, 65 percent: in 2001, 60 percent; in 2002, 55 percent; 
and finally in 2001, the taxable percentage would return to 50%.
  I believe the increase in the taxable portion of Social Security 
benefits was blatantly unfair because it changed the rules in the 
middle of the game. Responsible senior citizens who had carefully 
planned for their retirement were penalized and saw their income fall 
while their marginal tax rate skyrocketed. Nearly 9,000 seniors 
representing 23.4 percent of recipients are affected by this provision. 
These seniors relied on and based their decisions on the old law, and 
they cannot now go back in time to change these decisions.
  Clearly, we should be encouraging all Americans to save and invest 
for the future. We can not be sure that Social Security benefits will 
take care of all our retirement needs. If Congress continues to change 
the rules after plans and investment decisions have been made, we will 
diminish the incentive for Americans to prepare for the future and plan 
accordingly.
  I am consistently amazed by the perverse disincentives Congress 
enacts. Aside being patently unfair, taxing 85% of Social Security 
benefits above the current income levels creates a tremendous 
disincentive for seniors to work. It simply does not make sense to work 
if every dollar you earn over the threshold drastically reduces your 
Social Security benefits.
  This legislation is supported by the National Committee to Preserve 
Social Security and Medicare, the Seniors Coalition and Sixty-Plus.
  I am pleased that this Congress will be focusing on strengthening and 
restructuring our nation's Social Security system for the seniors of 
today and tomorrow without placing an unfair burden on American 
workers. As we continue working together for a solution to our nation's 
retirement system I will push to include this provision in any Social 
Security bill we enact this year.
  Finally, I am sure many of my colleagues note that the problems with 
this additional tax on Social Security benefits are strikingly similar 
to the Social Security earnings limit. It is my strong hope that we 
will act expeditiously on this legislation as well as my legislation to 
fully repeal the unfair earnings test.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    National Committee to Preserve


                                 Social Security and Medicare,

                                 Washington, DC, January 20, 1999.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The National Committee to Preserve 
     Social Security and Medicare is pleased to endorse your 
     legislation to repeal the inequitable tax increase on Social 
     Security benefits enacted as part of the 1993 budget 
     reconciliation bill.
       The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 increased the 
     amount of Social Security benefits subject to tax from 50 
     percent to 85 percent for individual beneficiaries with 
     income above $34,000 or for couples with income above 
     $44,000. The ``Senior Citizens' Equity Act'' would gradually 
     phase out this increase and return the taxable percentage to 
     50 percent.
       The 1993 tax increase affects not only wealthy seniors but 
     also middle income seniors. Over time, many more moderate and 
     low income retirees will see their income pushed over the 
     thresholds because the thresholds are not indexed. Taxing 85 
     percent of Social Security benefits over the current income 
     thresholds unfairly penalizes responsible older Americans who 
     planned for their retirement through employment, saving, and 
     investment. Many National Committee Members need or want to 
     work, but they also deserve to receive their hard-earned 
     retirement benefits. The increased tax rate only discourages 
     work and retirement savings.
       Moreover, a Price-Waterhouse analysis demonstrated that the 
     1993 legislation targeted seniors by increasing their tax 
     burden more than non-seniors in every income category--on 
     average twice as great for senior families as for non-senior 
     families. Middle income seniors experienced a 
     disproportionately large tax increase under the 1993 bill, 
     and your legislation will provide them with much needed 
     relief.
       The 5.5 million members and supporters of the National 
     Committee thank you for your efforts on behalf of older 
     Americans.
           Sincerely,
                                                Martha A. McSteen,
     President.
                                  ____



                                      The 60 Plus Association,

                                  Arlington, VA, January 20, 1999.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: I commend you for introducing the 
     Senior Citizens' Equity Act, which would repeal the 
     previously enacted tax on Social Security benefits.
       A great inequity hit senior citizens when President 
     Clinton's 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act increased 
     the taxable proportion of Social Security benefits from 50% 
     to 85%. It hit seniors whose income was as low as $34,000 
     (single) and $44,000 (couples). This placed an unfair burden 
     on our seniors who were suddenly singled out and had the 
     income for which they had worked subject to a burdensome 
     increase in taxes. Almost one-third of our seniors were dealt 
     this blow.
       Your Senior Citizens' Equity Act will help seniors while 
     restoring fairness to the tax system for them. I hope 
     Congress will act quickly to pass your legislation and that 
     the President will sign it. We owe that much to our seniors.
           Sincerely,
                               James L. Martin, President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROTH (for himself and Mr. Biden):
  S. 287. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to require the 
establishment of a regional or branch office of the Small Business 
Administration in each State; to the Committee on Small Business.


         small business administration equal representation act

 Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to 
introduce legislation to ensure that the federal government provides 
Delaware small businesses with the same treatment as those in other 
states. Delaware is the only state in which the Small Business 
Administration does not maintain a district office. As a result, 
Delaware small businesses are being shortchanged.
  The primary function of Small Business Administration district 
offices is the approval of Small Business Administration loan guarantee 
applications. Without a district office, Delaware applications must be 
processed out of

[[Page 1234]]

state. As a result, community benefit, interviews, and local outlook 
cannot be considered with loan guarantee paperwork as is common in 
other states, and applications take longer to process. Small Business 
Administration district offices will also provide Delaware's Small 
Business community with more effective outreach and awareness of Small 
Business Administration programs and services.
  The bill I am introducing today, with the cosponsorship of Senator 
Biden, will correct this inequity. This bill, the Small Business 
Administration Equal Representation Act, specifies that each state is 
entitled to a single Small Business Administration district office. But 
it will do so without authorizing any additional appropriations.
  Mr. President, Delaware small businesses deserve the same level of 
support from the Small Business Administration as is found in every 
other state. Even Puerto Rico benefits from having a Small Business 
Administration district office. The Small Business Administration Equal 
Representation Act will assure that Delaware receives from the Small 
Business Administration the level of support it deserves.
 Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Bill Roth, my 
good friend and colleague from Delaware, the distinguished chairman of 
the Finance Committee, in introducing legislation important to our 
State.
  Small businesses are the cornerstone of our economy--in Delaware and 
across the rest of the country. They are key players in the record 
economic expansion we have enjoyed over the last seven years. They are 
engines of job growth and technical innovation, and they deserve not 
only our praise, but our support as well.
  The Small Business Administration has many programs that can provide 
that support--including loan guarantee--through a national network of 
district offices. However, Delaware remains the only State in the Union 
that is without a Small Business Administration district office. The 
higher hurdles between Delaware small businesses and the services of 
the Small Business Administration reduce the value of those services to 
Delawareans.
  That is why Senator Roth and I are introducing this legislation, that 
will guarantee that every state--including Delaware--will have its own 
Small Business Administration district office. This can be accomplished 
without any additional expenditures under the current Small Business 
Administration budget.
  A district office in Delaware will make sure that Delaware businesses 
will enjoy the same access to Small Business Administration programs 
that their counterparts in other States now have. I look forward to 
working with Bill Roth, and Congressman Mike Castle in the House, to 
make this fair and sensible proposal a success in this session of 
Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith 
        of Oregon, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 288. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 
from income certain amounts received under the National Health Service 
Corps Scholarship Program and F. Edward Hebert Armed Forces Health 
Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                            tax legislation

 Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to 
amend our tax law's treatment of scholarships awarded under the 
National Health Service Corps (NHSC) scholarship program. Although, as 
a general rule, scholarships are excludable from income, the Internal 
Revenue Service has taken the position that NHSC scholarships are 
includible in income. Imposing taxes on the scholarships could have 
disastrous effects on a program that for over 20 years has helped 
funnel doctors, nurse-practitioners, physician assistants, and other 
health professionals into medically underserved communities.
  Under the National Health Service Corps program, health professions 
students are given a scholarship covering the cost of tuition and fees, 
together with a monthly stipend covering living expenses. For each year 
of scholarship funding, NHSC scholars are obligated, upon completion of 
their training, to provide a year of full-time primary health care in 
one of 2,000 designated health professions shortage areas. These 
shortage areas include the nation's neediest communities, both rural 
areas and inner cities. NHSC scholars who renege on their service 
obligations are required to re-pay an amount equal to three times the 
scholarship, plus interest.
  Generally, the Internal Revenue Code provides that amounts received 
as scholarships are not includible in a recipient's gross income. There 
is an exception to this rule, however, when a scholarship is provided 
in exchange for services or a promise to perform services. Without such 
an exception, an employer could disguise compensation as a scholarship. 
National Health Corps Service scholarships, however, are not disguised 
compensation. Upon completion of their studies, the large majority of 
NHSC scholars do not work for the Federal government, which awarded 
them the scholarship. Instead, they work at places like low-income 
clinics or inner-city hospitals. Consequently, this is not a situation 
where an employer is transforming compensation into a scholarship.
  I introduced a bill similar to this one during the last Congress. It 
was passed by the Senate as part of the Education Savings and School 
Excellence Act of 1998, and was included in the conference agreement 
for that bill. This bill was vetoed by the president, so the problem 
still exists. The conference committee also determined that amounts 
received under the F. Edward Hebert Armed Forces Health Professions 
Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program should also be eligible 
for tax-free treatment. This is a program similar to the National 
Health Service Corps available to members of the armed forces. The bill 
I am introducing today also provides for exclusion from income for 
scholarships received under this program.
  Last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that providing 
an exclusion from income for amounts received under these two 
scholarship programs would have a negligible effect on budget receipts. 
I do not expect any change in that analysis, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in support of this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Hutchinson, and 
        Mr. Sessions):
  S. 289. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to permit 
faith-based substance abuse treatment centers to receive Federal 
assistance, to permit individuals receiving Federal drug treatment 
assistance to select private and religiously oriented treatment, and to 
protect the rights of individuals from being required to receive 
religiously oriented treatment; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.


               faith-based drug treatment enhancement act

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today, I, along with my colleagues 
Senators Coverdell, Hutchinson, and Sessions introduced the ``Faith-
Based Drug Treatment Enhancement Act.'' The purpose of this legislation 
is to make successful faith-based drug and alcohol treatment programs 
eligible for federal substance abuse treatment dollars. It will allow 
faith-based programs to stand on an equal footing with other treatment 
programs which receive federal aid, allowing them to compete for 
federal funds without changing the religious nature of the help they 
provide. This is important because it is the religious character of the 
program to which program recipients often point as the reason for their 
success in overcoming their addiction.
  Many faith-based treatment centers have astounding treatment success 
rates, particularly when compared with the single-digit success rates 
of many government-sponsored secular programs. One faith-based 
organization, the Mel Trotter Ministry, is located in my state of 
Michigan. This ministry points to the accountability demanded

[[Page 1235]]

of addicts entering its faith-based program as a reason for its 
success. Another contributing factor to Mel Trotter's astounding 70 
percent success rate is the program's ability to provide recipients 
with an incentive to change. The drug addict finds a new life at Mel 
Trotter Ministries and is finally able to overcome his or her 
addiction.
  A similar program in my state, the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries, 
boasts a 78 percent success rate for its substance abuse programs. One 
of the program recipients describes his experience at Detroit Rescue 
Mission Ministries this way: ``I was in and out of jail. During the 
winter of 1995, I was exposed to arctic cold with a resulting case of 
frostbite so severe I was threatened with amputation. Released from 
probation for the sixth time, I found Detroit Rescue Mission 
Ministries' Oasis shelter on Woodward Avenue and stayed 22 nights. 
There I found more than a shelter--I found a relationship with God and 
a new life of service for Him.''
  Mel Trotter Ministry and Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries are 
examples of substance abuse treatment programs with proven success 
records. These programs and programs like them should be allowed to 
provide the crucial assistance needed for individuals to overcome their 
substance abuse once and for all.
  This legislation builds on the charitable choice provision Senator 
Ashcroft fought to have included in the historic welfare reform bill. 
That provision allows faith based charities to contract with government 
to supply social services without having to give up their religious 
character. No longer will religious groups have to literally hide the 
Bibles in order to help people.
  Where sterile, bureaucratic government run programs fail, faith based 
programs can succeed, and are succeeding already. I urge my colleagues 
to support these efforts by supporting this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 290. A bill to establish an adoption awareness program, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


                         ADOPTION PROMOTION ACT

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues' 
support for The Adoption Promotion Act. This legislation will work to 
provide important information on adoption to women facing unplanned 
pregnancies.
  Mr. President, each year more than a million couples eagerly await 
the opportunity to adopt a child. Unfortunately, only 50,000 domestic, 
non-related adoptions occur each year. Couples waiting to adopt are 
willing and able to provide loving homes. Some of them have for one 
reason or another found themselves incapable of having children of 
their own. Others simply wish to share their lives and their homes with 
another child. Every one of them could nurture and give a good 
upbringing to whatever youngster is lucky enough to get them as 
parents. Unfortunately, the would-be parents often must wait several 
years for the opportunity to adopt a healthy child. For the anxious 
parents, the waiting seems to last an eternity.
  There are many reasons for the sharp disparity between the relatively 
limited number of children available for adoption and the growing 
number of families anxiously waiting to adopt a child. Crucial is the 
fact that many women are not provided adequate information about 
adoption when they are making the important decision of how to deal 
with an unexpected pregnancy. Too few women are fully informed 
concerning the adoption option.
  We know that providing information to women on adoption as a choice 
can increase the number of adoptions that occur each year and decrease 
the number of abortions. I believe that this is an important goal. For 
this reason, I have introduced, along with my colleague, Senator 
Landrieu, legislation that authorizes an Adoption Promotion program. 
This program will provide $25 million in grants to be used for adoption 
promotion activity. It will also require recipients to contribute $25 
million of in-kind donations. The total amount going to adoption 
promotion will, therefore, be $50 million. This amount will allow for a 
thorough information campaign to take place--reaching women all over 
the country.
  The legislation provides for grants to be used for public service 
announcements on print, radio, TV, and billboards. Grants will also be 
provided for the development and distribution of brochures regarding 
adoption through federally funded Title X clinics. These provisions 
will enable women to have accurate and clear information on adoption as 
an alternative when at a crucial point in their pregnancies. Further, 
the campaign will help to raise the level of awareness around the 
country about the importance of adoption.
  Mr. President, I believe that each and every one of us, whether pro-
life or pro-choice, should be working to reduce the number of abortions 
that occur each year. Indeed, I have often heard on this floor that 
abortion should be ``safe, legal and rare.'' I take my colleagues at 
their word and urge them to join me in this voluntary information 
program; a program designed to inform women of all their choices 
regarding any unexpected pregnancy.
  Too many women in America feel abandoned and helpless in the face of 
an unexpected pregnancy. The father of the child may have left, the 
woman's family and friends even may desert her. Even those who stay 
with her may simply pressure her to end an embarrassing and troublesome 
situation.
  Too often, then, our women, in a vulnerable state, are left without 
full, unbiased information and guidance concerning their options. I 
think it is crucial in these circumstances that we keep these women 
fully informed of all their options--including the option of releasing 
their child into the arms of a welcoming couple, anxious to become 
loving parents.
  If we truly are committed to making every child a wanted child, Mr. 
President, I believe it is our duty to see to it that pregnant women 
know that there are couples out there who would love to care for their 
children. It is time for us, as a nation, to make clear our commitment 
to truly full information for expectant mothers, information that 
includes the availability of safe, loving homes for their 
children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 291. A bill to convey certain real property within the Carlsbad 
Project in New Mexico to the Carlsbad Irrigation District; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


       the carlsbad irrigation project acquired land transfer act

 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am again introducing the 
Carlsbad Irrigation Project Acquired Land Transfer Act. I, along with 
Congressman Skeen, have been working to convey tracts of land--paid for 
by Carlsbad Irrigation District and referred to as ``acquired lands''--
back to the district, during the past several congresses.
  I introduced this bill in May of 1997 in order to transfer lands back 
to the rightful owners. This legislation transfers acquired land 
without affecting operations at the New Mexico state park at Brantley 
Dam, or the operations and ownership of the dam itself. Furthermore, 
the bill allows the Carlsbad Irrigation District to utilize proceeds 
from oil and gas leases on the transferred lands and moves land 
management responsibilities from the federal government to a local 
entity.
  The Carlsbad Irrigation Project is a single-purpose project created 
in 1905 by the Bureau of Reclamation. The district has had operations 
and maintenance responsibilities for the irrigation and drainage system 
since 1932. This legislation directs the Carlsbad Irrigation District 
to continue to manage the lands as they have been in the past, for the 
purposes for which the project was constructed. It met all the 
repayment obligations to the government in 1991, and it's about time we 
let Carlsbad Irrigation District have what is rightfully theirs.
  This is a fair and equitable bill that has been developed over years 
of negotiations. This legislation accomplishes three things: conveys 
title of acquired lands and facilities to Carlsbad Irrigation District; 
allows the District to assume management of leases and the

[[Page 1236]]

benefits of the receipts from these acquired lands; and sets a 180 day 
deadline for the transfer, establishing a 50-50 cost-sharing standard 
for carrying out the transfer.
  This bill passed the Senate near the end of the 105th Congress, but 
unfortunately did not get through the House of Representatives due to 
political wrangling at the end of the session. However, this bill has 
strong bipartisan and administration support, and it is about time that 
we pass this legislation to provide the Bureau of Reclamation with the 
ability to accomplish their stated goal of logical transfer such as 
this.
  This transfer shifts responsibility from the federal government back 
to a local entity, and creates opportunity for the district to improve 
and enhance the management of these lands. I hope that both the Senate 
and the House of Representatives will act quickly on this legislation 
so that the Carlsbad Irrigation District will promptly begin getting 
the benefits for that which they have paid.
  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. 291

       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 ``Carlsbad Irrigation Project 
     Acquired Land Transfer Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE.

       (a) Lands and Facilities.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), and 
     subject to subsection (c), the Secretary of the Interior (in 
     this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') may convey to the 
     Carlsbad Irrigation District (a quasi-municipal corporation 
     formed under the laws of the State of New Mexico and in this 
     Act referred to as the ``District''), all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the lands described 
     in subsection (b) (in this Act referred to as the ``acquired 
     lands'') and all interests the United States holds in the 
     irrigation and drainage system of the Carlsbad Project and 
     all related lands including ditch rider houses, maintenance 
     shop and buildings, and Pecos River Flume.
       (2) Limitation.--
       (A) Retained surface rights.--The Secretary shall retain 
     title to the surface estate (but not the mineral estate) of 
     such acquired lands which are located under the footprint of 
     Brantley and Avalon dams or any other project dam or 
     reservoir division structure.
       (B) Storage and flow easement.--The Secretary shall retain 
     storage and flow easements for any tracts located under the 
     maximum spillway elevations of Avalon and Brantley 
     Reservoirs.
       (b) Acquired Lands Described.--The lands referred to in 
     subsection (a) are those lands (including the surface and 
     mineral estate) in Eddy County, New Mexico, described as the 
     acquired lands and in section (7) of the ``Status of Lands 
     and Title Report: Carlsbad Project'' as reported by the 
     Bureau of Reclamation in 1978.
       (c) Terms and Conditions of Conveyance.--Any conveyance of 
     the acquired lands under this Act shall be subject to the 
     following terms and conditions:
       (1) Management and use, generally.--The conveyed lands 
     shall continue to be managed and used by the District for the 
     purposes for which the Carlsbad Project was authorized, based 
     on historic operations and consistent with the management of 
     other adjacent project lands.
       (2) Assumed rights and obligations.--Except as provided in 
     paragraph (3), the District shall assume all rights and 
     obligations of the United States under--
       (A) the agreement dated July 28, 1994, between the United 
     States and the Director, New Mexico Department of Game and 
     Fish (Document No. 2-LM-40-00640), relating to management of 
     certain lands near Brantley Reservoir for fish and wildlife 
     purposes; and
       (B) the agreement dated March 9, 1977, between the United 
     States and the New Mexico Department of Energy, Minerals, and 
     Natural Resources (Contract No. 7-07-57-X0888) for the 
     management and operation of Brantley Lake State Park.
       (3) Exceptions.--In relation to agreements referred to in 
     paragraph (2)--
       (A) the District shall not be obligated for any financial 
     support agreed to by the Secretary, or the Secretary's 
     designee, in either agreement; and
       (B) the District shall not be entitled to any receipts for 
     revenues generated as a result of either agreement.
       (d) Completion of Conveyance.--If the Secretary does not 
     complete the conveyance within 180 days from the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to 
     the Congress within 30 days after that period that includes a 
     detailed explanation of problems that have been encountered 
     in completing the conveyance, and specific steps that the 
     Secretary has taken or will take to complete the conveyance.

     SEC. 3. LEASE MANAGEMENT AND PAST REVENUES COLLECTED FROM THE 
                   ACQUIRED LANDS.

       (a) Identification and Notification of Leaseholders.--
     Within 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall--
       (1) provide to the District a written identification of all 
     mineral and grazing leases in effect on the acquired lands on 
     the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) notify all leaseholders of the conveyance authorized by 
     this Act.
       (b) Management of Mineral and Grazing Leases, Licenses, and 
     Permits.--The District shall assume all rights and 
     obligations of the United States for all mineral and grazing 
     leases, licenses, and permits existing on the acquired lands 
     conveyed under section 2, and shall be entitled to any 
     receipts from such leases, licenses, and permits accruing 
     after the date of conveyance. All such receipts shall be used 
     for purposes for which the Project was authorized and for 
     financing the portion of operations, maintenance, and 
     replacement of the Summer Dam which, prior to conveyance, was 
     the responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation, with the 
     exception of major maintenance programs in progress prior to 
     conveyance which shall be funded through the cost share 
     formulas in place at the time of conveyance. The District 
     shall continue to adhere to the current Bureau of Reclamation 
     mineral leasing stipulations for the Carlsbad Project.
       (c) Availability of Amounts Paid Into Reclamation Fund.--
       (1) Existing receipts.--Receipts in the reclamation fund on 
     the date of enactment of this Act which exist as construction 
     credits to the Carlsbad Project under the terms of the 
     Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands (30 U.S.C. 351-359) 
     shall be deposited in the General Treasury and credited to 
     deficit reduction or retirement of the Federal debt.
       (2) Receipts after enactment.--Of the receipts from mineral 
     and grazing leases, licenses, and permits on acquired lands 
     to be conveyed under section 2, that are received by the 
     United States after the date of enactment and before the date 
     of conveyance--
       (A) not to exceed $200,000 shall be available to the 
     Secretary for the actual costs of implementing this Act with 
     any additional costs shared equally between the Secretary and 
     the District; and
       (B) the remainder shall be deposited into the General 
     Treasury of the United States and credited to deficit 
     reduction or retirement of the Federal debt.

     SEC. 4. VOLUNTARY WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the ability 
     of the District to voluntarily implement water conservation 
     practices.

     SEC. 5. LIABILITY.

       Effective on the date of conveyance of any lands and 
     facilities authorized by this Act, the United States shall 
     not be held liable by any court for damages of any kind 
     arising out of any act, omission, or occurrence relating to 
     the conveyed property, except for damages caused by acts of 
     negligence committed by the United States or by its 
     employees, agents, or contractors, prior to conveyance. 
     Nothing in this section shall be considered to increase the 
     liability of the United States beyond that provided under 
     chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, popularly known 
     as the Federal Tort Claims Act.

     SEC. 6. FUTURE BENEFITS.

       Effective upon transfer, the lands and facilities 
     transferred pursuant to this Act shall not be entitled to 
     receive any further Reclamation benefits pursuant to the 
     Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, and Acts supplementary 
     thereof or amendatory thereto attributable to their status as 
     part of a Reclamation Project.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 292. A bill to preserve the cultural resources of the Route 66 
corridor and to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide 
assistance; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                   ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR PRESERVATION ACT

 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill which 
will help preserve an important part of American history for future 
generations--Route 66. This legislation, which passed in the Senate at 
the end of the 105th Congress, will protect the unique cultural 
resources along the famous Route 66 corridor and authorize the Interior 
Secretary to provide assistance through the Park Service. Congresswoman 
Heather Wilson of Albuquerque, New Mexico, has reintroduced a companion 
bill (H.R. 66) in the House of Representatives, and we hope this 
Congress will act promptly in passing this legislation aiding 
grassroots efforts to maintain this important part of American culture.

[[Page 1237]]

  The road system of a nation links its people together. Without such a 
road, the movement of goods and services would be impossible. History 
is replete with examples of pioneers, such as those that forged the 
Santa Fe Trail, trying to find passage across this great country.
  John Steinbeck referred to Route 66 as the ``Mother Road'' in ``The 
Grapes of Wrath,'' and many in this Chamber may recall traveling across 
country on this road in their youth. New Mexico added to the aura of 
Route 66, giving new generations of Americans their first experience of 
our colorful culture and heritage. Starting in Chicago, Illinois, and 
winding 2,200 miles across the United States to Santa Monica, 
California, Route 66 linked the urban centers of the Midwest and West. 
Services sprung up along the route to provide for travelers crossing 
the heart of the country.
  It rolled through eight American states, and in New Mexico, it went 
through the communities of Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Albuquerque, Grants 
and Gallup. Route 66 allowed generations of vacationers to travel to 
previously remote areas and experience the natural beauty and cultures 
of the Southwest and Far West. Route 66 symbolized freedom and mobility 
for an entire generation of Americans in their automobiles. This bill 
will facilitate greater coordination in federal, state and private 
efforts to preserve structures and other cultural resources of the 
historic Route 66 corridor, the 20th Century route equivalent to the 
Santa Fe Trail.
  I introduced the Route 66 Study Act of 1990, which directed the 
National Park Service to determine the best ways to preserve, 
commemorate and interpret Route 66. The study, which was completed in 
1995, determined that Route 66 had historic national significance, and 
the structures along the disappearing asphalt should be preserved. As a 
result, I introduced a bill last June authorizing the National Park 
Service to join with federal, state and private efforts to preserve 
aspects of the historic Route 66 corridor, the nation's most important 
thoroughfare for east-west migration in the 20th century.
  The Administration testified in favor of this legislation, with some 
modifications. We made some good changes to the bill, which passed the 
Senate, and prompt passage will ensure success of this Park Service 
program. This legislation authorizes a funding level over 10 years and 
stresses that we want the federal government to support grassroots 
efforts to preserve aspects of this historic highway.
  This bill authorizes the National Park Service to support state, 
local and private efforts to preserve the Route 66 corridor by 
providing technical assistance, participating in cost-sharing programs, 
and making grants. The Park Service will also act as a clearing house 
for communication among federal, state, local, private and American 
Indian entities interested in the preservation of the Route 66 
corridor.
  As we draw to the close of this century, there is more interest in 
trying to save Route 66. I once again ask this body to promptly pass 
this legislation, and sincerely hope the House of Representatives 
follows suit. The time is now to provide tangible means of assistance 
to preserve this special part of Americana.
  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. 292

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

     SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Route 66 corridor.--The term ``Route 66 corridor'' 
     means structures and other cultural resources described in 
     paragraph (3), including--
       (A) public land within the immediate vicinity of those 
     portions of the highway formerly designated as United States 
     Route 66; and
       (B) private land within that immediate vicinity that is 
     owned by persons or entities that are willing to participate 
     in the programs authorized by this Act.
       (2) Cultural resource programs.--The term ``Cultural 
     Resource Programs'' means the programs established and 
     administered by the National Park Service for the benefit of 
     and in support of preservation of the Route 66 corridor, 
     either directly or indirectly.
       (3) Preservation of the route 66 corridor.--The term 
     ``preservation of the Route 66 corridor'' means the 
     preservation or restoration of structures or other cultural 
     resources of businesses, sites of interest, and other 
     contributing resources that--
       (A) are located within the land described in paragraph (1);
       (B) existed during the route's period of outstanding 
     historic significance (principally between 1933 and 1970), as 
     defined by the study prepared by the National Park Service 
     and entitled ``Special Resource Study of Route 66'', dated 
     July 1995; and
       (C) remain in existence as of the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Cultural Resource 
     Programs at the National Park Service.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means a State in which a 
     portion of the Route 66 corridor is located.

     SEC. 2. MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in collaboration with the 
     entities described in subsection (c), shall facilitate the 
     development of guidelines and a program of technical 
     assistance and grants that will set priorities for the 
     preservation of the Route 66 corridor.
       (b) Designation of Officials.--The Secretary shall 
     designate officials of the National Park Service stationed at 
     locations convenient to the States to perform the functions 
     of the Cultural Resource Programs under this Act.
       (c) General Functions.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) support efforts of State and local public and private 
     persons, nonprofit Route 66 preservation entities, Indian 
     tribes, State Historic Preservation Offices, and entities in 
     the States for the preservation of the Route 66 corridor by 
     providing technical assistance, participating in cost-sharing 
     programs, and making grants;
       (2) act as a clearinghouse for communication among Federal, 
     State, and local agencies, nonprofit Route 66 preservation 
     entities, Indian tribes, State Historic Preservation Offices, 
     and private persons and entities interested in the 
     preservation of the Route 66 corridor; and
       (3) assist the States in determining the appropriate form 
     of and establishing and supporting a non-Federal entity or 
     entities to perform the functions of the Cultural Resource 
     Programs after those programs are terminated.
       (d) Authorities.--In carrying out this Act, the Secretary 
     may--
       (1) enter into cooperative agreements, including, but not 
     limited to study, planning, preservation, rehabilitation and 
     restoration;
       (2) accept donations;
       (3) provide cost-share grants and information;
       (4) provide technical assistance in historic preservation; 
     and
       (5) conduct research.
       (e) Preservation Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide assistance in 
     the preservation of the Route 66 corridor in a manner that is 
     compatible with the idiosyncratic nature of the Route 66 
     corridor.
       (2) Planning.--The Secretary shall not prepare or require 
     preparation of an overall management plan for the Route 66 
     corridor, but shall cooperate with the States and local 
     public and private persons and entities, State Historic 
     Preservation Offices, nonprofit Route 66 preservation 
     entities, and Indian tribes in developing local preservation 
     plans to guide efforts to protect the most important or 
     representative resources of the Route 66 corridor.

     SEC. 3. RESOURCE TREATMENT.

       (a) Technical Assistance Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a program of 
     technical assistance in the preservation of the Route 66 
     corridor.
       (2) Guidelines for preservation needs.--
       (A) In general.--As part of the program under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall establish guidelines for setting 
     priorities for preservation needs.
       (B) Basis.--The guidelines under subparagraph (A) may be 
     based on national register standards, modified as appropriate 
     to meet the needs for preservation of the Route 66 corridor.
       (b) Program for Coordination of Activities.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall coordinate a program 
     of historic research, curation, preservation strategies, and 
     the collection of oral and video histories of events that 
     occurred along the Route 66 corridor.
       (2) Design.--The program under paragraph (1) shall be 
     designed for continuing use and implementation by other 
     organizations after the Cultural Resource Programs are 
     terminated.
       (c) Grants.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) make cost-share grants for preservation of the Route 66 
     corridor available for resources that meet the guidelines 
     under subsection (a); and

[[Page 1238]]

       (2) provide information about existing cost-share 
     opportunities.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009 to carry out the 
     purposes of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 293. A bill to direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior 
and to convey certain lands in San Juan County, New Mexico, to San Juan 
College; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


             THE OLD JICARILLA SITE CONVEYANCE ACT OF 1999

 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to again introduce 
important legislation allowing for a transfer of an unwanted piece of 
federal property to an educational institution which needs it. The Old 
Jicarilla Site Conveyance Act of 1999 allows for transfer by the 
Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior of real property and 
improvements at an abandoned and surplus ranger station to San Juan 
College. The site is in the Carson National Forest near the village of 
Gobernador, New Mexico. The Jicarilla Site will continue to be used for 
public purposes, including educational and recreational purposes of the 
college.
  Over one third of the land in New Mexico is owned by the federal 
government, and therefore finding appropriate sites for community and 
educational purposes can be difficult. The Forest Service determined 
that these ten acres are of no further use to them because a new 
administrative facility has been located in the town of Bloomfield, New 
Mexico. In fact, the facility has had no occupants for several years, 
and the Forest Service testified last year that enactment of this bill 
would ``provide long-term benefits for the people of San Juan County 
and the students and faculty of San Juan College.''
  I am hoping this bill will again move swiftly through this body. 
Clearly, this legislation deserves prompt approval in the House and 
signature by the President because it is noncontroversial and the land 
can readily be put to good use for San Juan College and the area 
residents. We also need to put this property in the hands of the 
college so it can protect the area from further deterioration and fire.
  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. 293

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

     SECTION 1. OLD JICARILLA ADMINISTRATIVE SITE.

       (a) Conveyance of Property.--Not later than one year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaries of 
     Agriculture and Interior (herein ``the Secretaries'') shall 
     convey to San Juan College, in Farmington, New Mexico, 
     subject to the terms and conditions under subsection (c), all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a 
     parcel of real property (including any improvements on the 
     land) consisting of approximately ten acres known as the 
     ``Old Jicarilla Site'' located in San Juan County, New Mexico 
     (T29N; R5W; portions of Sections 29 and 30).
       (b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property conveyed under subsection 
     (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the 
     Secretaries and the President of San Juan College. The cost 
     of the survey shall be borne by San Juan College.
       (c) Terms and Conditions.--
       (1) Notwithstanding exceptions of application under the 
     Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 U.S.C. 869(c)), 
     consideration for the conveyance described in subsection (a) 
     shall be--
       (A) an amount that is consistent with the Bureau of Land 
     Management special pricing program for Governmental entities 
     under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act; and
       (B) an agreement between the Secretaries and San Juan 
     College indemnifying the Government of the United States from 
     all liability of the Government that arises from the 
     property.
       (2) The lands conveyed by this Act shall be used for 
     educational and recreational purposes. If such lands cease to 
     be used for such purposes, at the option of the United 
     States, such lands will revert to the United States.
       (d) Land Withdrawals.--Public Land Order 3443, only insofar 
     as it pertains to lands described in subsections (a) and (b) 
     above, shall be revoked simultaneous with the conveyance of 
     the property under subsection (a).

                          ____________________