[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 674-804]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Lott, Mr. McCain, 
        Mr. Mack, and Mr. Coverdell):
  S. 2. A bill to extend programs and activities under the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act of 1965; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                     educational opportunities act

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished 
Majority Leader in introducing the ``Educational Opportunities Act.'' 
This legislation extends programs authorized under the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and will serve as the foundation for our 
efforts this Congress to expand and strengthen those programs.
  The 106th Congress will see the close of the 20th century and the 
birth of the new millennium. At such a time, one quite naturally begins 
to imagine the advances and challenges--the promises and perils--which 
lie ahead. As a nation, we have viewed the future with optimism. We 
know the march of civilization may at times be uphill, but we see it as 
nevertheless moving upward. We know as well that the success of our 
efforts will not rely upon luck, but upon hard work and thoughtful 
planning.
  It comes as little surprise, therefore, that at this time in history 
our thoughts turn to education. From the kitchen table to the board 
room to the halls of Congress, education heads the agenda. That is as 
it should be, as we rediscover the truth in Aristotle's observation 
that ``all who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been 
convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth.''
  Reauthorization of federal elementary and secondary education 
programs offers this Congress an opportunity to make a lasting mark on 
the programs and policies which will define the role of the United 
States in the coming century. Our international competitors have long 
observed and admired our system of education. Unfortunately, in all too 
many cases, the pupils have surpassed the teacher. We lag behind many 
of our competitors. We must pick up the pace, and we must do so without 
delay.
  The renewed emphasis on education has stimulated thinking and has 
produced a wealth of ideas regarding the paths we should follow. As 
chairman of the Senate committee charged with pulling these ideas into 
a sound and coherent package, I am looking forward to a Congress which 
is both challenging and productive.
  It is my hope that the Educational Opportunities Act will build upon 
the education successes of the 105th Congress. We enacted nearly a 
dozen important initiatives which touched the lives of students of all 
ages--from youngsters in Head Start and Even Start, to special 
education students, to high school vocational students, to college 
undergraduates and graduate students, to adults in need of remedial 
education.
  These successes were possible because of a willingness to work 
together towards common objectives. In the United States Congress, we 
begin with 535 individual road maps marking a course to our 
destination. Arriving there will require the good faith give-and-take 
which has characterized our finest moments as a democracy.
  The legislation which Senator Lott and I are introducing today does 
not fill in all the blanks regarding federal elementary and secondary 
education policy. What it does do is set the cornerstone for a final 
product in which I believe each and every member of Congress will take 
pride.
  The findings and purposes contained in this legislation are intended 
to underscore the basic building blocks of success; parental 
involvement, qualified teachers, a safe learning environment, and a 
focus on high achievement by all students.
  Everyone has a role to play in assuring our students acquire the 
knowledge and skills they need to make the United States number one in 
the world.
  Parents are the first and most consistent educators in a child's 
life. Reading to young children and emphasizing the importance of 
education instils a love of learning which lasts a lifetime.
  The teacher in the classroom is at the core of educational 
improvement. Without a strong, competent, well prepared teaching force, 
other investments in education will be of little value. It has been 15 
years since the national crisis in education was raised by the ``A 
Nation At Risk'' report. The admonition was given in these terse words: 
If a foreign government has imposed on us our educational system we 
would have declared it an act of war.
  Yet little has changed. There is some improvement in science but 
little in math. Children are coming to school slightly more prepared to 
learn, but this is primarily in the area of health.
  It is obvious that nothing is going to change unless it changes in 
the classroom. And nothing will change in the classroom until the 
teachers change. And the teachers can't be expected to change until 
they have help in knowing what is expected of them.
  The Higher Education Amendments enacted into law last October took 
significant steps towards demanding excellence from our teacher 
preparation program. With the Educational Opportunities Act, we now 
have the opportunity to focus on those already in the teaching force.
  State and local officials are also important players. Not only do 
they provide the bulk of financial support for elementary and secondary 
education in the country, they are also undertaking significant 
initiatives to determine what children should know and to assess 
whether they have mastered that material.
  The federal government, since the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act was initiated in 1965, has offered support for these efforts--as 
well as providing critical additional resources to offer extra help to 
educationally disadvantaged students. In addition, the federal 
government makes a significant investment in research. A key challenge 
for us will be determining how the federal investments can be most 
effectively targeted. The research we support must not only be sound 
but must also be useful and readily available to states and localities.
  Ultimately, the focus of all of our efforts must be on the student in 
the classroom. The training of teachers, the establishment of 
expectations, and the development of assessments are all pieces of the 
puzzle which take shape in the classroom itself. If we keep that 
objective foremost in mind, we will build the educational system we 
need and that our children deserve.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMS (for himself, Mr. Roth, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Ashcroft, 
        Mr. Lott, Mr. McCain, Mr. Coverdell, and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 3. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 
individual income tax rates by 10 percent; to the Committee on Finance.


                     Tax Cuts for All Americans Act

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 3, the Tax 
Cuts for All Americans Act, along with Senator Roth, Chairman of the 
Senate Finance Committee.

[[Page 675]]

  First, I'd like to commend the Senate Majority Leader for including 
this important legislation as one of the Republicans' top 5 agenda 
items and Finance Committee Chairman Roth for making this a committee 
priority. This emphasizes the importance and commitment by Republicans 
to provide meaningful tax relief for working Americans.
  Mr. President, American families are taxed at the highest levels in 
our history, even higher than during World War II, with nearly 40 
percent of a typical family's budget going to pay taxes on the federal, 
state and local levels.
  Today, the Clinton Administration consumes over 20.5 percent of 
America's entire gross domestic product. That's the highest level since 
1945 when taxes were raised to pay for the war.
  The average American family today spends more on taxes than it does 
on food, clothing, and housing combined. If the ``hidden taxes'' that 
result from the high cost of government regulations are factored in, a 
family today gives up more than 50 percent of its annual income to the 
government.
  At a time when the combination of federal income and payroll taxes, 
state and local taxes, and hidden taxes consumes over half of a working 
family's budget, the taxpayers are in desperate need of relief.
  Americans today are working harder but taking home less. Over $1.8 
trillion of their income will be siphoned off to the federal government 
this year. It is more critical than ever to provide meaningful tax 
relief for working Americans.
  Freedom for families means giving families the freedom to spend more 
of their own dollars as they choose. This tax relief would give 
Americans more freedom and create more economic opportunities for them 
and their children.
  That's why I am introducing this legislation today. Tax relief should 
benefit all Americans, not just those who have been targeted in the 
past. My bill, S. 3, will do just that.
  My bill will cut the personal tax rate for each American by 10 
percent. It will increase incentives to work, save and invest. It will 
improve the standards of living for all Americans and permit the growth 
in our economy we expect to continue and it will encourage Americans to 
work harder and produce more.
  By enacting the 10 percent across-the-board tax cut, we can begin 
turning back the decades of abuse taxpayers have suffered at the hands 
of their own government, a government too often eager to spend the 
taxpayers' money to expand its reach over more of our economy and 
personal lives.
  It was John F. Kennedy who observed that ``an economy hampered with 
high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget 
just as it will never produce enough output and enough jobs.''
  Twenty-seven years ago, President Reagan enacted a 25 percent across-
the-board tax cut and in 1986, President Reagan signed a landmark piece 
of legislation to reduce the marginal tax rate to a simple two-rate 
income tax system: 15 percent and 28 percent.
  What resulted was nothing short of an economic miracle. Our nation 
experienced the longest peacetime economic expansion in American 
history, the benefits of which we are still enjoying today. Ronald 
Reagan fought for tax cuts, not to bribe special interest groups to buy 
their votes--but because individuals have a right to spend their own 
money.
  President Reagan was right. When we enact the 10 percent across-the-
board tax cut, we will make our economy more dynamic, and our families 
more prosperous as we approach the 21st century.
  While I prefer a total overhaul of the tax system and will shortly 
introduce a bill to repeal the current system with a consumption tax, 
this is a much-needed first step we should all agree is our first 
priority for this Congress.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Senators 
Grams and Roth in introducing S. 3, the Tax Cut for All Americans Act. 
This legislation will provide every American taxpayer with substantial 
tax relief by cutting all income tax rates 10 percent across the board, 
effective January first of this year.
  American working families need this tax cut, Mr. President. They are 
now taxed at a higher rate than at any time since World War II. Not 
even at the height of the Vietnam War have the American people seen 
such a large part of their pay taken away from them in the form of 
taxes.
  Since the current Administration came into office in 1993, federal 
taxes have gone up by over 35 percent, or over $600 billion. The 
nonpartisan Tax Foundation recently told us what these sky-high taxes 
mean to the typical American family. First, they mean that the typical 
family now pays more in total taxes than it spends on food, clothing 
and shelter combined--spending more than 38 percent on taxes and only 
28 percent on food, clothing and housing.
  Second, the typical American now works nearly three hours out of an 
eight hour day just to pay taxes. That American works from January 1 to 
May 10, the latest day ever, before he or she stops working for the 
government and starts working for him or herself.
  Washington currently takes 21 percent of the national income in 
taxes. That's $6,810 for every man, woman and child in this country.
  Mr. President, that is simply too much. Our high taxes place an undue 
burden on working families. They stifle entrepreneurial activity. They 
promise to put an end to our current era of sustained economic growth.
  But hard times born of high taxes are not inevitable. We can lighten 
the tax burden on our working families. We can encourage 
entrepreneurial activity and economic growth. We can cut taxes and 
thereby ensure prosperity well into the next century.
  Mr. President, when President Clinton passed the largest tax hike in 
American history, he did so on the grounds that budget deficits 
demanded increased federal revenue. There was indeed increased federal 
revenue after that tax hike. But it was fueled by a surprisingly strong 
economy, born of technological innovation and low inflation, factors 
strong enough to offset the dampening effects of higher taxes. 
Moreover, the excuse of budget deficits is no longer tenable.
  We have entered an era of budget surplus. And it is our moral duty as 
well as our fiscal responsibility to lower taxes on those hard working 
Americans who pulled us out of the era of budget deficits.
  What is more, by taking a small portion of our projected surplus and 
giving it back to the American people, we will ensure prosperity, 
economic growth, and healthy receipts for years to come.
  Mr. President, this across the board tax cut will leave the current 
tax structure's progressivity intact. It also leaves current deductions 
and credits intact. It is not intended as a final solution to all of 
the problems in our tax system. This tax cut is intended as a well-
deserved down payment on the money Washington owes to the American 
people--the money earned by the American people that should stay with 
the American people, to save, invest and spend as they see fit.
  America's working families deserve a break. They also need it if they 
are to save and invest for their future and for the future of the 
American economy. It is time to give them that hard-earned tax break by 
cutting rates across the board by 10 percent. I urge my colleagues to 
support this important legislation in the name of fairness and economic 
responsibility.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. McCain, Mr. Smith 
        of New Hampshire, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Roberts, Mr. 
        Allard, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Lott, Mr. Mack, Mr. 
        Coverdell, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. 
        Abraham):
  S. 4. A bill to improve pay and retirement equity for members of the 
Armed Forces; and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.


 The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 
                                  1999

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today Senator Lott, the Majority Leader, 
introduced S-4, The Soldiers', Sailors',

[[Page 676]]

Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. This bill is an 
integral part of the National Security element of the Republican agenda 
that the Leader announced this morning.
  Last fall, Senator Lott, in an excellent exchange of letters with the 
President and Republican Chairmen, identified key problems with 
military pay levels and the military pay system. Following this 
exchange of letters, the Armed Services Committee held hearings on 
September 29, 1998 and again on January 5, 1999 in which General 
Shelton and the Service Chiefs described the many problems the military 
services were experiencing because of many years of shortfalls in 
funding. Particular emphasis was put on readiness, the retention of 
highly trained people and the inability to achieve recruiting goals.
  The testimony of the Joint Chiefs was courageous. They spoke very 
candidly of the problems borne by the men and women in the military and 
how increased defense funding was needed in order to begin to alleviate 
these problems.
  General Shelton and the Service Chiefs urged the President and the 
Congress to support a military pay raise that would begin to address 
inequities between military pay and civilian wages, and to resolve the 
inequity of the ``Redux'' retirement system.
  Senators Lott, McCain, and Roberts took an initiative and showed 
leadership in developing this legislation. These Senators worked within 
the Armed Services Committee to craft a bill that would address the 
problems identified by the Joint Chiefs in a comprehensive and 
responsible manner.
  The bill will provide military personnel a four-point-eight percent 
pay raise on January 1, 2000 and will require that future military pay 
raises be based on the annual Employment Cost Index plus one-half a 
percent. The bill restructures the military pay tables to recognize the 
value of promotions and to weight the pay raise toward mid-career NCOs 
and officers where retention is most critical. The Joint Chiefs 
testified that there is a pay gap between military and private sector 
wages of 14 percent. This bill moves aggressively to close this gap and 
ensure military personnel are compensated in an equitable manner.
  The bill provides military personnel who entered the service after 
July 31, 1986 the option to revert to the previous military retirement 
system that provided a 50 percent multiplier to their base pay averaged 
over their highest three years and includes full cost-of-living 
adjustments; or, to accept a $30,000 bonus and remain under the 
``Redux'' retirement system. The Joint Chiefs testified that the 
``Redux'' retirement system is responsible for an increasing number of 
mid-career military personnel deciding to leave the service. S-4 will 
offer these highly trained personnel an attractive option to 
incentivize them to continue to serve a full career.
  We will establish a Thrift Savings Plan that will allow service 
members to save up to five percent of their base pay, before taxes, and 
will permit them to directly deposit their enlistment and re-enlistment 
bonuses into their Thrift Savings Plan. In a separate section, the bill 
authorizes Service Secretaries to offer to match the Thrift Savings 
Plan contributions of those service members serving in critical 
specialities for a period of six years in return for a six year service 
commitment. This is a powerful tool to assist the services in retaining 
key personnel in the most critical specialities.
  Senator McCain was the key proponent of an initiative in the bill 
that would authorize a Special Subsistence Allowance to assist the most 
needy junior military personnel who are eligible for food stamps. The 
allowance would provide these families an additional $180 per month and 
will reduce the number of military families on the food stamp rolls.
  As I and other Members of the Senate, have visited military bases 
here in the United States, in Bosnia and in other deployment areas, we 
have found that our young service men and women are doing a tremendous 
job, in many cases, under adverse conditions. In order to demonstrate 
to these highly trained and dedicated military personnel that we 
appreciate their sacrifices and contributions, we must move quickly to 
pass this legislation. Such action will permit military personnel and 
their families to make the decision to continue to serve and will 
assist the military services in recruiting the high quality force we 
have worked so hard to achieve.
  I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this important legislation and will 
do my upmost to ensure its quick passage.
  Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I rise today with my Republican colleagues 
to introduce legislation, S. 4, to provide increased pay and retirement 
benefits to members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their families. As one 
who has long warned that declining defense budgets and increasing 
commitments were propelling our military towards the infamous ``hollow 
force'' of the 1970s, I decided last October 7th to join with my 
friend, Senator Pat Roberts, to craft legislation, S. 2563, that would 
restore military retirement benefits to a full 50 percent of base pay 
for 20-year retirees in order to encourage highly trained, experienced 
military personnel to remain in the service. Unfortunately, because of 
time constraints, Congress did not act on the bill last year.
  Since then I have worked closely with Senator Roberts and the 
Republican Leader, Senator Lott, to draft legislation that address the 
readiness concerns of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of 
Defense. This bill is a significant step toward addressing the pressing 
readiness problems afflicting our Armed Forces. The Joint Chiefs of 
Staff have repeatedly stated the current retirement and pay gap is 
their highest priority for solving the retention problem undermining 
the preparedness of our men and women in uniform.
  Specifically, this legislation which is sponsored by Majority Leader 
Lott, Senator Roberts, myself, the distinguished Chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee and the other committee Republicans, includes a 4.8% 
pay raise, effective January 1, 2000, pay table reform, restored 
military retirement benefits to the pre-1986 level of 50 percent, 
Thrift Savings Plan proposals, and a Special Subsistence Allowance to 
help the neediest families in the Armed Forces, many of whom now 
require federal food stamp assistance.
  Mr. President, the Republican Leader has agreed to make this 
legislation a priority for the 106th Congress and we fully expect to 
pass this legislative proposal by Memorial Day. If Congress approves 
this bill by the end of May, then 3,000 military families will be paid 
enough to get them off food stamps at the beginning of next year. It is 
unconscionable that the men and women who are willing to sacrifice 
their lives for their country have to rely on food stamps to make ends 
meet. The Pentagon estimates that approximately 11,900 military 
households currently receive food stamps. This bill will help nearly 
10,000 of these military families get off of food stamps over the next 
5 years by ensuring their income is sufficient to provide for their 
spouses and children.
  Mr. President, it is critical that we address the concerns of the 
senior military leadership who have cited better military pay and 
retirement benefits as their highest priority. We failed to do so last 
year. We must move this bill through Congress quickly this year to slow 
the exodus of our pilots, military policemen, Naval special operations 
personnel, surface warfare officers and other critical military 
specialties that have caused the deterioration in our Armed Forces 
readiness that we have heard detailed in testimony over the last four 
months.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Lott, Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. McCain):
  S. 5. A bill to reduce the transportation and distribution of illegal 
drugs and to strengthen domestic demand reduction, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

[[Page 677]]




                         drug free century act

  Mr. DeWINE.  Mr. President, it is an honor for me, today, to be 
introducing the Drug Free Century Act. This bill is cosponsored by 
Senator Abraham, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Coverdell, Senator Craig, 
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and the 
chairman of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, Senator 
Grassley. This legislation is truly a team effort. There are over a 
dozen Members of the Senate who have worked very extensively on this 
bill and I appreciate very much their work. This is really a team 
effort. This bill is a comprehensive approach to our antidrug effort, 
and it really is a continuation of the great work that was begun by 
Congress last year.
  This legislation represents the continuation of those efforts that we 
began last year, a continuation of the efforts to reverse the dangerous 
trend of rising drug use in our country, particularly among our young 
people. According to data prepared as part of the Monitoring the Future 
Program funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, from 1992 to 
1997 we saw an 80-percent increase in cocaine use among high school 
seniors, and a 100-percent increase in heroin use among high school 
seniors.
  Other very serious trends related to drug use highlight the problems 
that have increased over the course of the last decade. Drug abuse 
related arrests for minors doubled between 1992 and 1996. Emergency 
room admissions related to heroin jumped 58 percent between 1992 and 
1995. And, in the first half of 1995, methamphetamine related emergency 
room admissions were 321 percent higher compared to the first half of 
1991.
  This increase in drug use and criminal activity virtually wiped out 
the gains made in the previous decade. Just in the 4 years prior to 
1992, the Office of National Drug Control Policy--the drug czar's 
office--reported a 25-percent reduction in overall drug use by 
adolescent Americans, and a 35-percent reduction in overall drug use.
  Last year, Congressman Bill McCollum and I and other Members of the 
Senate and House took a close look at why our increasing investment in 
antidrug programs was not resulting in a decline in drug use among 
young people. One immediate problem that we found was a clear decline 
in resources and manpower devoted to reducing illegal drug imports by 
our Customs Service, the Coast Guard, and the Defense Department. In 
other words, our drug interdiction effort had been falling farther and 
farther behind. It had become less and less a percentage, a smaller 
percentage of our budget year after year.
  As we all know, reducing drug use is a team effort at all levels of 
government: the Federal Government, the State government, the local 
government. However, international drug reduction, seizing or 
disrupting the flow of drugs before these drugs reach our country, is 
solely our responsibility. It is solely the Federal Government's 
responsibility. Over a 5-year period beginning in 1993, the Federal 
Government solely abdicated this responsibility. Fewer and fewer 
resources and man-hours were devoted to stopping drugs at the source or 
stopping them in transit. As a result, the volume of drugs coming into 
our country has never been higher, making illegal drugs too easy to 
find and too easy to buy.
  To reverse this trend and to correct the imbalance, Congressman 
McCollum and I last year led a bipartisan, bicameral effort to pass the 
Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. We passed it and the President 
signed it. We were joined in this initiative by Congressman and now 
Speaker Denny Hastert, by Senator Coverdell, Senator Graham of Florida, 
and many, many others. This new law provides a 3-year, $2.6 billion 
investment in our drug-fighting capabilities abroad. Through crop 
eradication and drug interdiction we will reduce the amount of drugs 
entering our country and, in turn, increase the price of drugs on the 
streets of America.
  An even larger goal of this new law is to restore a balanced antidrug 
strategy, one that makes a clear commitment to all the elements of our 
strategy--treatment, education, domestic law enforcement, and drug 
interdiction. A balanced drug control strategy worked before, and we 
are ready to make it work again.
  The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act that we passed last year 
was one of several key initiatives passed by the Republican Congress. 
There is no doubt we are determined to turn the corner on drug use. 
Congressman Rob Portman of Cincinnati, Senator Chuck Grassley, myself, 
and others worked to pass the Drug Free Communities Act, which directs 
Federal funds to community coalitions that educate children about the 
dangers of drugs. The 105th Congress also passed the Drug Demand 
Reduction Act, which will streamline existing Federal education and 
treatment programs and make these programs more accountable. We also 
passed the Drug Free Workplace Act, which provides grants to assist 
nonprofit organizations in promoting drug-free workplaces, and 
encourages States to adopt cost-effective financial incentives, such as 
a reduction in worker's compensation premiums for drug-free workplaces.
  Today, with the Drug Free Century Act that we are introducing, we 
will continue to make oversight and reform of our antidrug policies a 
top priority of this Congress. This bill is the beginning of a critical 
and comprehensive examination of our entire antidrug strategy. While we 
devoted most of last year to correcting the resource imbalances that we 
found in this strategy, we intend to devote the next 2 years to looking 
at the effectiveness of the very programs themselves. We also need to 
change current laws to crack down on the elements within the illegal 
drug industry.
  The Drug Free Century Act is the first phase of this effort. It 
addresses all elements of our antidrug strategy, and it is a 
comprehensive strategy that we are presenting today--education, 
treatment, law enforcement, and drug interdiction.
  It is my hope that as we examine our drug strategy through meetings 
and hearings, we will build on the foundation of the legislation that 
we are introducing this morning.
  First, the Drug Free Century Act contains much-needed reforms in our 
international criminal laws. It would improve extradition procedures 
for those who flee justice for drug crimes by prohibiting fugitives 
from benefiting from fugitive status. It would crack down on illegal 
money-transmitting businesses. It would punish money launderers who 
conduct their business through foreign banks. And it would enable 
greater global cooperation in the fight against international crime.
  Mr. President, these provisions, advocated by the chairman of our 
caucus on international narcotics control, Senator Grassley, are 
designed to disrupt and dismantle the drug lords' criminal 
infrastructure. And like the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act we 
passed in the last Congress, these provisions would make the drug 
business far more costly and far more dangerous.
  Our legislation also authorizes additional funding for our 
eradication and interdiction operations and calls on the administration 
to meet the funding goals we set last year in the Western Hemisphere 
Drug Elimination Act. The new interdiction initiatives outlined in this 
bill are designed to supplement last year's legislation and came about 
as a direct result of my visits and the visits of other Members of the 
Senate and the House to the transit zones in the Caribbean, as well as 
the source countries--Peru and Colombia. These visits reconfirmed, in 
my mind, what statistics had already told us: Seizing or destroying a 
ton of cocaine outside our borders is more cost effective than seizing 
the same quantity at the point of sale. It just makes good common 
sense.
  Our legislation also addresses domestic reduction efforts. It would 
increase penalties for certain drug offenses committed in the presence 
of a child. It would call on the Drug Enforcement Administration to 
develop a plan for the safe and speedy cleanup of methamphetamine 
laboratories in the

[[Page 678]]

United States. I know this latter issue is of great concern to my 
colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, who was successful last year 
in increasing penalties for those involved in meth labs here in the 
United States.
  Mr. President, the bill also includes Senator Abraham's legislation 
to increase mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for powder 
cocaine offenses.
  Our bill sets a foundation for what I hope will be a comprehensive 
initiative to reduce the demand for drugs, especially among our young 
people. The bill includes Senator Coverdell's initiative to protect 
children and teachers from drug-related school violence and Senator 
Grassley's legislation to strengthen the parent and family movement to 
teach children and society about the dangers of drugs.
  This bill, frankly, is a first step. I expect we will see other 
important antidrug bills that we would want to roll into this larger 
comprehensive bill, and we will do that as the time comes. For example, 
I am working on legislation to clarify that juvenile facilities should 
be eligible for jail-based and aftercare drug treatment programs and 
provide coordinated services for early mental health and substance 
abuse screening for juveniles. The latter initiative is based on an 
effort underway in Hamilton County, OH, an initiative and effort I have 
personally looked at on a number of occasions. In Hamilton County, OH, 
the courts are working with all the relevant county agencies to offer a 
coordinated service delivery system for at-risk youth. By bringing 
these resources together, Mr. President, we can ensure that young 
people in need of help will get the right kind of assistance.
  I believe in a balanced counterdrug strategy. I made it clear in the 
past Congress that I strongly support our continued commitment in 
demand reduction and law enforcement programs. We need to invest in all 
these elements to have success, and that is why we are today 
introducing this bill--to demonstrate that we intend to find ways to 
improve all elements of our comprehensive antidrug strategy.
  Combined with the efforts begun last year, the Drug Free Century Act 
represents a turning point in a decade of increased youth delinquency 
and drug use. With this legislation, we are sending a clear signal that 
we intend to change course and begin the next decade and, yes, the next 
century, on the road to eliminating the scourge of illegal drugs in 
this country.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Drug Free 
Century Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                  S. 5

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Drug-Free 
     Century Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                TITLE I--INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY REDUCTION

                    Subtitle A--International Crime

                 Chapter 1--International Crime Control

Sec. 1001. Short title.
Sec. 1002. Felony punishment for violence committed along the United 
              States border.

 Chapter 2--Strengthening Maritime Law Enforcement Along United States 
                                Borders

Sec. 1003. Sanctions for failure to heave to, obstructing a lawful 
              boarding, and providing false information.
Sec. 1004. Civil penalties to support maritime law enforcement.
Sec. 1005. Customs orders.

     Chapter 3--Smuggling Of Contraband and Other Illegal Products

Sec. 1006. Smuggling contraband and other goods from the United States.
Sec. 1007. Customs duties.
Sec. 1008. False certifications relating to exports.

       Chapter 4--Denying Safe Havens to International Criminals

Sec. 1009. Extradition for offenses not covered by a list treaty.
Sec. 1010. Extradition absent a treaty.
Sec. 1011. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 1012. Temporary transfer of persons in custody for prosecution.
Sec. 1013. Prohibiting fugitives from benefiting from fugitive status.
Sec. 1014. Transfer of foreign prisoners to serve sentences in country 
              of origin.
Sec. 1015. Transit of fugitives for prosecution in foreign countries.

  Chapter 5--Seizing And Forfeiting Assets of International Criminals

Sec. 1016. Criminal penalties for violations of anti-money laundering 
              orders.
Sec. 1017. Cracking down on illegal money transmitting businesses.
Sec. 1018. Expanding civil money laundering laws to reach foreign 
              persons.
Sec. 1019. Punishment of money laundering through foreign banks.
Sec. 1020. Authority to order convicted criminals to return property 
              located abroad.
Sec. 1021. Administrative summons authority under the Bank Secrecy Act.
Sec. 1022. Exempting financial enforcement data from unnecessary 
              disclosure.
Sec. 1023. Criminal and civil penalties under the International 
              Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Sec. 1024. Attempted violations of the Trading With the Enemy Act.
Sec. 1025. Jurisdiction over certain financial crimes committed abroad.

     Chapter 6--Promoting Global Cooperation in the Fight Against 
                          International Crime

Sec. 1026. Streamlined procedures for execution of MLAT requests.
Sec. 1027. Temporary transfer of incarcerated witnesses.
Sec. 1028. Training of foreign law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 1029. Discretionary authority to use forfeiture proceeds.

                 Subtitle B--International Drug Control

Sec. 1201. Annual country plans for drug-transit and drug producing 
              countries.
Sec. 1202. Prohibition on use of funds for counternarcotics activities 
              and assistance.
Sec. 1203. Sense of Congress regarding Colombia.
Sec. 1204. Sense of Congress regarding Mexico.
Sec. 1205. Sense of Congress regarding Iran.
Sec. 1206. Sense of Congress regarding Syria.
Sec. 1207. Brazil.
Sec. 1208. Jamaica.
Sec. 1209. Sense of Congress regarding North Korea.

           Subtitle C--Foreign Military Counter-Drug Support

Sec. 1301. Report.

                Subtitle D--Money Laundering Deterrence

Sec. 1401. Short title.
Sec. 1402. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 1403. Reporting of suspicious activities.
Sec. 1404. Expansion of scope of summons power.
Sec. 1405. Penalties for violations of geographic targeting orders and 
              certain recordkeeping requirements.
Sec. 1406. Repeal of certain reporting requirements.
Sec. 1407. Limited exemption from Paperwork Reduction Act.
Sec. 1408. Sense of Congress.

    Subtitle E--Additional Funding For Source and Interdiction Zone 
                               Countries

Sec. 1501. Source zone countries.
Sec. 1502. Central America.

                   TITLE II--DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT

                     Subtitle A--Criminal Offenders

Sec. 2001. Apprehension and procedural treatment of armed violent 
              criminals.
Sec. 2002. Criminal attempt.
Sec. 2003. Drug offenses committed in the presence of children.
Sec. 2004. Sense of Congress on border defense.
Sec. 2005. Clone pagers.

             Subtitle B--Methamphetamine Laboratory Cleanup

Sec. 2101. Sense of Congress regarding methamphetamine laboratory 
              cleanup.

        Subtitle C--Powder Cocaine Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

Sec. 2201. Sentencing for violations involving cocaine powder.

                     Subtitle D--Drug-Free Borders

Sec. 2301. Increased penalty for false statement offense.
Sec. 2302. Increased number of border patrol agents.
Sec. 2303. Enhanced border patrol pursuit policy.

                  TITLE III--DOMESTIC DEMAND REDUCTION

            Subtitle A--Education, Prevention, and Treatment

Sec. 3001. Sense of Congress on reauthorization of Safe and Drug-Free 
              Schools and Communities Act of 1994.

[[Page 679]]

Sec. 3002. Sense of Congress regarding reauthorization of prevention 
              and treatment programs.
Sec. 3003. Report on drug-testing technologies.
Sec. 3004. Use of National Institutes of Health substance abuse 
              research.
Sec. 3005. Needle exchange.
Sec. 3006. Drug-free teen drivers incentive.
Sec. 3007. Drug-free schools.
Sec. 3008. Victim and witness assistance programs for teachers and 
              students.
Sec. 3009. Innovative programs to protect teachers and students.

                     Subtitle B--Drug-Free Families

Sec. 3101. Short title.
Sec. 3102. Findings.
Sec. 3103. Purposes.
Sec. 3104. Definitions.
Sec. 3105. Establishment of drug-free families support program.
Sec. 3106. Authorization of appropriations.

 TITLE IV--FUNDING FOR UNITED STATES COUNTER-DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

Sec. 4001. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 4002. Cargo inspection and narcotics detection equipment.
Sec. 4003. Peak hours and investigative resource enhancement.
Sec. 4004. Air and marine operation and maintenance funding.
Sec. 4005. Compliance with performance plan requirements.
Sec. 4006. Commissioner of Customs salary.
Sec. 4007. Passenger preclearance services.

                 Subtitle B--United States Coast Guard

Sec. 4101. Additional funding for operation and maintenance.

              Subtitle C--Drug Enforcement Administration

Sec. 4201. Additional funding for counternarcotics and information 
              support operations.

                 Subtitle D--Department of the Treasury

Sec. 4301. Additional funding for counter-drug information support.

                   Subtitle E--Department of Defense

Sec. 4401. Additional funding for expansion of counternarcotics 
              activities.
Sec. 4402. Forward military base for counternarcotics matters.
Sec. 4403. Expansion of radar coverage and operation in source and 
              transit countries.
Sec. 4404. Sense of Congress regarding funding under Western Hemisphere 
              Drug Elimination Act.
Sec. 4405. Sense of Congress regarding the priority of the drug 
              interdiction and counterdrug activities of the Department 
              of Defense.
                TITLE I--INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY REDUCTION
                    Subtitle A--International Crime

                 CHAPTER 1--INTERNATIONAL CRIME CONTROL

     SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.

       This chapter may be cited as the ``International Crime 
     Control Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 1002. FELONY PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLENCE COMMITTED ALONG THE 
                   UNITED STATES BORDER.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 27 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 554. Violence while eluding inspection or during 
       violation of arrival, reporting, entry, or clearance 
       requirements

       ``(a) In General.--Whoever attempts to commit or commits a 
     crime of violence or recklessly operates any conveyance 
     during and in relation to--
       ``(1)(A) attempting to elude or eluding immigration, 
     customs, or agriculture inspection; or
       ``(B) failing to stop at the command of an officer or 
     employee of the United States charged with enforcing the 
     immigration, customs, or other laws of the United States 
     along any border of the United States; or
       ``(2) an intentional violation of arrival, reporting, 
     entry, or clearance requirements, as set forth in section 107 
     of the Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150ff), section 10 of 
     the Act of August 20, 1912 (commonly known as the `Plant 
     Quarantine Act' (7 U.S.C. 164a)), section 7 of the Federal 
     Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U.S.C. 2807), section 431, 433, 
     434, or 459 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1431, 1433, 
     1434, and 1459), section 10 of the Act of August 30, 1890 (26 
     Stat. 417; chapter 839 (21 U.S.C. 105), section 2 of the Act 
     of February 2, 1903 (32 Stat. 792; chapter 349; 21 U.S.C. 
     111), section 4197 of the Revised Statutes (46 U.S.C. App. 
     91), or sections 231, 232, and 234 through 238 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1221, 1222, and 
     1224 through 1228) shall be--
       ``(A) fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 
     years, or both;
       ``(B) if bodily injury (as defined in section 1365(g)) 
     results, fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 
     years, or both; or
       ``(C) if death results, fined under this title, imprisoned 
     for any term of years or for life, or both, and may be 
     sentenced to death.
       ``(b) Conspiracy.--If 2 or more persons conspire to commit 
     an offense under subsection (a), and 1 or more of those 
     persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, 
     each shall be punishable as a principal, except that a 
     sentence of death may not be imposed.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``554. Violence while eluding inspection or during violation of 
              arrival, reporting, entry, or clearance requirements.''.
       (c) Reckless Endangerment.--Section 111 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Reckless Endangerment.--Whoever--
       ``(1) knowingly disregards or disobeys the lawful authority 
     or command of any officer or employee of the United States 
     charged with enforcing the immigration, customs, or other 
     laws of the United States along any border of the United 
     States while engaged in, or on account of, the performance of 
     official duties of that officer or employee; and
       ``(2) as a result of disregarding or disobeying an 
     authority or command referred to in paragraph (1), endangers 
     the safety of any person or property,
     shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 6 
     months, or both.''.

 CHAPTER 2--STRENGTHENING MARITIME LAW ENFORCEMENT ALONG UNITED STATES 
                                BORDERS

     SEC. 1003. SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO HEAVE TO, OBSTRUCTING A 
                   LAWFUL BOARDING, AND PROVIDING FALSE 
                   INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 109 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 2237. Sanctions for failure to heave to; sanctions for 
       obstruction of boarding or providing false information

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Federal law enforcement officer.--The term `Federal 
     law enforcement officer' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 115(c).
       ``(2) Heave to.--The term `heave to' means, with respect to 
     a vessel, to cause that vessel to slow or come to a stop to 
     facilitate a law enforcement boarding by adjusting the course 
     and speed of the vessel to account for the weather conditions 
     and the sea state.
       ``(3) Vessel of the united states; vessel subject to the 
     jurisdiction of the united states.--The terms `vessel of the 
     United States' and `vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     United States' have the meanings given those terms in section 
     3 of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46 U.S.C. App. 
     1903).
       ``(b) Failure To Obey an Order To Heave to.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for the master, 
     operator, or person in charge of a vessel of the United 
     States or a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
     States, to fail to obey an order to heave to that vessel on 
     being ordered to do so by an authorized Federal law 
     enforcement officer.
       ``(2) Impeding boarding; providing false information in 
     connection with a boarding.--It shall be unlawful for any 
     person on board a vessel of the United States or a vessel 
     subject to the jurisdiction of the United States knowingly or 
     willfully to--
       ``(A) fail to comply with an order of an authorized Federal 
     law enforcement officer in connection with the boarding of 
     the vessel;
       ``(B) impede or obstruct a boarding or arrest, or other law 
     enforcement action authorized by any Federal law; or
       ``(C) provide false information to a Federal law 
     enforcement officer during a boarding of a vessel regarding 
     the destination, origin, ownership, registration, 
     nationality, cargo, or crew of the vessel.
       ``(c) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section may 
     be construed to limit the authority granted before the date 
     of enactment of the International Crime Control Act of 1999 
     to--
       ``(1) a customs officer under section 581 of the Tariff Act 
     of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1581) or any other provision of law 
     enforced or administered by the United States Customs 
     Service; or
       ``(2) any Federal law enforcement officer under any Federal 
     law to order a vessel to heave to.
       ``(d) Consent or Waiver of Objection by a Foreign 
     Country.--
       ``(1) In general.--A foreign country may consent to or 
     waive objection to the enforcement of United States law by 
     the United States under this section by international 
     agreement or, on a case-by-case basis, by radio, telephone, 
     or similar oral or electronic means.
       ``(2) Proof of consent or waiver.--The Secretary of State 
     or a designee of the Secretary of State may prove a consent 
     or waiver described in paragraph (1) by certification.
       ``(e) Penalties.--Any person who intentionally violates any 
     provision of this section shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(f) Seizure of Vessels.--
       ``(1) In general.--A vessel that is used in violation of 
     this section may be seized and forfeited.
       ``(2) Applicability of laws.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (C), the laws 
     described in subparagraph (B)

[[Page 680]]

     shall apply to seizures and forfeitures undertaken, or 
     alleged to have been undertaken, under any provision of this 
     section.
       ``(B) Laws described.--The laws described in this 
     subparagraph are the laws relating to the seizure, summary, 
     judicial forfeiture, and condemnation of property for 
     violation of the customs laws, the disposition of the 
     property or the proceeds from the sale thereof, the remission 
     or mitigation of the forfeitures, and the compromise of 
     claims.
       ``(C) Execution of duties by officers and agents.--Any duty 
     that is imposed upon a customs officer or any other person 
     with respect to the seizure and forfeiture of property under 
     the customs laws shall be performed with respect to a seizure 
     or forfeiture of property under this section by the officer, 
     agent, or other person that is authorized or designated for 
     that purpose.
       ``(3) In rem liability.--A vessel that is used in violation 
     of this section shall, in addition to any other liability 
     prescribed under this subsection, be liable in rem for any 
     fine or civil penalty imposed under this section.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 109 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``2237. Sanctions for failure to heave to; sanctions for obstruction of 
              boarding or providing false information.''.

     SEC. 1004. CIVIL PENALTIES TO SUPPORT MARITIME LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 17 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 675. Civil penalty for failure to comply with a lawful 
       boarding, obstruction of boarding, or providing false 
       information

       ``(a) In General.--Any person who violates section 2237(b) 
     of title 18 shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more 
     than $25,000.
       ``(b) In Rem Liability.--In addition to being subject to 
     the liability under subsection (a), a vessel used to violate 
     an order relating to the boarding of a vessel issued under 
     the authority of section 2237 of title 18 shall be liable in 
     rem and may be seized, forfeited, and sold in accordance with 
     section 594 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1594).''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 17 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``675. Civil penalty for failure to comply with a lawful boarding, 
              obstruction of boarding, or providing false 
              information.''.

     SEC. 1005. CUSTOMS ORDERS.

       Section 581 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1581) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Authorized Place Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `authorized place' includes, with respect to a vessel or 
     vehicle, a location in a foreign country at which United 
     States customs officers are permitted to conduct inspections, 
     examinations, or searches.''.

     CHAPTER 3--SMUGGLING OF CONTRABAND AND OTHER ILLEGAL PRODUCTS

     SEC. 1006. SMUGGLING CONTRABAND AND OTHER GOODS FROM THE 
                   UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Smuggling goods from the united states.--Chapter 27 of 
     title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 1002(a) 
     of this title, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 555. Smuggling goods from the United States

       ``(a) United States Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `United States' has the meaning given that term in section 
     545.
       ``(b) Penalties.--Whoever--
       ``(1) fraudulently or knowingly exports or sends from the 
     United States, or attempts to export or send from the United 
     States, any merchandise, article, or object contrary to any 
     law of the United States (including any regulation of the 
     United States); or
       ``(2) receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner 
     facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of that 
     merchandise, article, or object, prior to exportation, 
     knowing that merchandise, article, or object to be intended 
     for exportation contrary to any law of the United States,

     shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 
     years, or both.''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``555. Smuggling goods from the United States.''.
       (b) Laundering of Monetary Instruments.--Section 
     1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``section 555 (relating to smuggling goods from the 
     United States),'' before ``section 641 (relating to public 
     money, property, or records),''.
       (c) Merchandise Exported From United States.--Section 596 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1595a) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Merchandise Exported From the United States.--
     Merchandise exported or sent from the United States or 
     attempted to be exported or sent from the United States 
     contrary to law, or the value thereof, and property used to 
     facilitate the receipt, purchase, transportation, 
     concealment, or sale of that merchandise prior to exportation 
     shall be forfeited to the United States.''.

     SEC. 1007. CUSTOMS DUTIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 542 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by adding ``theft, 
     embezzlement, or misapplication of duties'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating the fourth and fifth undesignated 
     paragraphs as subsections (b) and (c), respectively;
       (3) in the third undesignated paragraph--
       (A) by striking ``Shall be fined'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``shall be fined''; and
       (B) by striking ``two years'' and inserting ``5 years'';
       (4) in the second undesignated paragraph--
       (A) by striking ``Whoever is guilty'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) is guilty''; and
       (B) by striking ``act or omission--'' and inserting ``act 
     or omission; or'';
       (5) in the first undesignated paragraph, by striking 
     ``Whoever knowingly effects'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Whoever--
       ``(1) knowingly effects''; and
       (6) in subsection (a) (as so designated by paragraph (5) of 
     this subsection) by inserting after paragraph (2) (as so 
     designated by paragraph (4) of this subsection) the 
     following:
       ``(3) embezzles, steals, abstracts, purloins, willfully 
     misapplies, willfully permits to be misapplied, or wrongfully 
     converts to his own use, or to the use of another, moneys, 
     funds, credits, assets, securities or other property 
     entrusted to his or her custody or care, or to the custody or 
     care of another for the purpose of paying any lawful 
     duties;''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 542 and inserting the 
     following:

``542. Entry of goods by means of false statements, theft, 
              embezzlement, or misapplication of duties.''.

     SEC. 1008. FALSE CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO EXPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 27 of title 18, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 1006(a) of this title, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 556. False certifications relating to exports

       ``Whoever knowingly transmits in interstate or foreign 
     commerce any false or fraudulent certificate of origin, 
     invoice, declaration, affidavit, letter, paper, or statement 
     (whether written or otherwise), that represents explicitly or 
     implicitly that goods, wares, or merchandise to be exported 
     qualify for purposes of any international trade agreement to 
     which the United States is a signatory shall be fined under 
     this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``556. False certifications relating to exports.''.

       CHAPTER 4--DENYING SAFE HAVENS TO INTERNATIONAL CRIMINALS

     SEC. 1009. EXTRADITION FOR OFFENSES NOT COVERED BY A LIST 
                   TREATY.

       Chapter 209 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 3197. Extradition for offenses not covered by a list 
       treaty

       ``(a) Serious Offense Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `serious offense' means conduct that would be--
       ``(1) an offense described in any multilateral treaty to 
     which the United States is a party that obligates parties--
       ``(A) to extradite alleged offenders found in the territory 
     of the parties; or
       ``(B) submit the case to the competent authorities of the 
     parties for prosecution; or
       ``(2) conduct that, if that conduct occurred in the United 
     States, would constitute--
       ``(A) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16);
       ``(B) the distribution, manufacture, importation or 
     exportation of a controlled substance (as defined in section 
     201 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
       ``(C) bribery of a public official; misappropriation, 
     embezzlement or theft of public funds by or for the benefit 
     of a public official;
       ``(D) obstruction of justice, including payment of bribes 
     to jurors or witnesses;
       ``(E) the laundering of monetary instruments, as described 
     in section 1956, if the value of the monetary instruments 
     involved exceeds $100,000;
       ``(F) fraud, theft, embezzlement, or commercial bribery if 
     the aggregate value of property that is the object of all of 
     the offenses related to the conduct exceeds $100,000;
       ``(G) counterfeiting, if the obligations, securities or 
     other items counterfeited, have an apparent value that 
     exceeds $100,000;
       ``(H) a conspiracy or attempt to commit any of the offenses 
     described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (G), or aiding 
     and

[[Page 681]]

     abetting a person who commits any such offense; or
       ``(I) a crime against children under chapter 109A or 
     section 2251, 2251A, 2252, or 2252A.
       ``(b) Authorization of Filing.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a foreign government makes a request 
     for the extradition of a person who is charged with or has 
     been convicted of an offense within the jurisdiction of that 
     foreign government, and an extradition treaty between the 
     United States and the foreign government is in force, but the 
     treaty does not provide for extradition for the offense with 
     which the person has been charged or for which the person has 
     been convicted, the Attorney General may authorize the filing 
     of a complaint for extradition pursuant to subsections (c) 
     and (d).
       ``(2) Filing of complaints.--
       ``(A) In general.--A complaint authorized under paragraph 
     (1) shall be filed pursuant to section 3184.
       ``(B) Procedures.--With respect to a complaint filed under 
     paragraph (1), the procedures contained in sections 3184 and 
     3186 and the terms of the relevant extradition treaty shall 
     apply as if the offense were a crime provided for by the 
     treaty, in a manner consistent with section 3184.
       ``(c) Criteria for Authorization of Complaints.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General may authorize the 
     filing of a complaint under subsection (b) only upon a 
     certification--
       ``(A) by the Attorney General, that in the judgment of the 
     Attorney General--
       ``(i) the offense for which extradition is sought is a 
     serious offense; and
       ``(ii) submission of the extradition request would be 
     important to the law enforcement interests of the United 
     States or otherwise in the interests of justice; and
       ``(B) by the Secretary of State, that in the judgment of 
     the Secretary of State, submission of the request would be 
     consistent with the foreign policy interests of the United 
     States.
       ``(2) Factors for consideration.--In making any 
     certification under paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary of State 
     may consider whether the facts and circumstances of the 
     request then known appear likely to present any significant 
     impediment to the ultimate surrender of the person who is the 
     subject of the request for extradition, if that person is 
     found to be extraditable.
       ``(d) Cases of Urgency.--
       ``(1) In general.--In any case of urgency, the Attorney 
     General may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State 
     and before any formal certification under subsection (c), 
     authorize the filing of a complaint seeking the provisional 
     arrest and detention of the person sought for extradition 
     before the receipt of documents or other proof in support of 
     the request for extradition.
       ``(2) Applicability of relevant treaty.--With respect to a 
     case described in paragraph (1), a provision regarding 
     provisional arrest in the relevant treaty shall apply.
       ``(3) Filing and effect of filing of complaints.--
       ``(A) In general.--A complaint authorized under this 
     subsection shall be filed in the same manner as provided in 
     section 3184.
       ``(B) Issuance of orders.--Upon the filing of a complaint 
     under this subsection, the appropriate judicial officer may 
     issue an order for the provisional arrest and detention of 
     the person as provided in section 3184.
       ``(e) Conditions of Surrender; Assurances.--
       ``(1) In general.--Before issuing a warrant of surrender 
     under section 3184 or 3186, the Secretary of State may--
       ``(A) impose conditions upon the surrender of the person 
     that is the subject of the warrant; and
       ``(B) require those assurances of compliance with those 
     conditions, as are determined by the Secretary to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) Additional assurances.--
       ``(A) In general.--In addition to imposing conditions and 
     requiring assurances under paragraph (1), the Secretary of 
     State shall demand, as a condition of the extradition of the 
     person in every case, an assurance described in subparagraph 
     (B) that the Secretary determines to be satisfactory.
       ``(B) Description of assurances.--An assurance described in 
     this subparagraph is an assurance that the person that is 
     sought for extradition shall not be tried or punished for an 
     offense other than that for which the person has been 
     extradited, absent the consent of the United States.''.

     SEC. 1010. EXTRADITION ABSENT A TREATY.

       Chapter 209 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by 
     section 1009 of this title, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 3198. Extradition absent a treaty

       ``(a) Serious Offense Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `serious offense' has the meaning given that term in section 
     3197(a).
       ``(b) Authorization of Filing.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a foreign government makes a request 
     for the extradition of a person who is charged with or has 
     been convicted of an offense within the jurisdiction of that 
     foreign government, and no extradition treaty is in force 
     between the United States and the foreign government, the 
     Attorney General may authorize the filing of a complaint for 
     extradition pursuant to subsections (c) and (d).
       ``(2) Filing and treatment of complaints.--
       ``(A) In general.--A complaint authorized under paragraph 
     (1) shall be filed pursuant to section 3184.
       ``(B) Procedures.--With respect to a complaint filed under 
     paragraph (1), procedures of sections 3184 and 3186 shall be 
     followed as if the offense were a `crime provided for by such 
     treaty' as described in section 3184.
       ``(c) Criteria for Authorization of Complaints.--The 
     Attorney General may authorize the filing of a complaint 
     described in subsection (b) only upon a certification--
       ``(1) by the Attorney General, that in the judgment of the 
     Attorney General--
       ``(A) the offense for which extradition is sought is a 
     serious offense; and
       ``(B) submission of the extradition request would be 
     important to the law enforcement interests of the United 
     States or otherwise in the interests of justice; and
       ``(2) by the Secretary of State, that in the judgment of 
     the certifying official, based on information then known--
       ``(A) submission of the request would be consistent with 
     the foreign policy interests of the United States;
       ``(B) the facts and circumstances of the request, including 
     humanitarian considerations, do not appear likely to present 
     a significant impediment to the ultimate surrender of the 
     person if found extraditable; and
       ``(C) the foreign government submitting the request is not 
     submitting the request in order to try or punish the person 
     sought for extradition primarily on the basis of the race, 
     religion, nationality, or political opinions of that person.
       ``(d) Limitations on Delegation.--
       ``(1) Delegation by attorney general.--The authorities and 
     responsibilities of the Attorney General under subsection (c) 
     may be delegated only to the Deputy Attorney General.
       ``(2) Delegation.--The authorities and responsibilities of 
     the Secretary of State set forth in this subsection may be 
     delegated only to the Deputy Secretary of State.
       ``(e) Cases of Urgency.--
       ``(1) In general.--In any case of urgency, the Attorney 
     General may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State 
     and before any formal certification under subsection (c), 
     authorize the filing of a complaint seeking the provisional 
     arrest and detention of the person sought for extradition 
     before the receipt of documents or other proof in support of 
     the request for extradition.
       ``(2) Filing of complaints; order by judicial officer.--
       ``(A) Filing.--A complaint filed under this subsection 
     shall be filed in the same manner as provided in section 
     3184.
       ``(B) Orders.--Upon the filing of a complaint under 
     subparagraph (A), the appropriate judicial officer may issue 
     an order for the provisional arrest and detention of the 
     person.
       ``(C) Releases.--If, not later than 45 days after the 
     arrest, the formal request for extradition and documents in 
     support of that are not received by the Department of State, 
     the appropriate judicial officer may order that a person 
     detained pursuant to this subsection be released from 
     custody.
       ``(f) Hearings.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (h), upon the 
     filing of a complaint for extradition and receipt of 
     documents or other proof in support of the request of a 
     foreign government for extradition, the appropriate judicial 
     officer shall hold a hearing to determine whether the person 
     sought for extradition is extraditable.
       ``(2) Criteria for extradition.--Subject to subsection (g) 
     in a hearing conducted under paragraph (1), the judicial 
     officer shall find a person extraditable if the officer 
     finds--
       ``(A) probable cause to believe that the person before the 
     judicial officer is the person sought in the foreign country 
     of the requesting foreign government;
       ``(B) probable cause to believe that the person before the 
     judicial officer committed the offense for which that person 
     is sought, or was duly convicted of that offense in the 
     foreign country of the requesting foreign government;
       ``(C) that the conduct upon which the request for 
     extradition is based, if that conduct occurred within the 
     United States, would be a serious offense punishable by 
     imprisonment for more than 10 years under the laws of--
       ``(i) the United States;
       ``(ii) the majority of the States in the United States; or
       ``(iii) of the State in which the fugitive is found; and
       ``(D) no defense to extradition under subsection (f) has 
     been established.
       ``(g) Limitation of Extradition.--
       ``(1) In general.--A judicial officer shall not find a 
     person extraditable under this section if the person has 
     established that the offense for which extradition is sought 
     is--
       ``(A) an offense for which the person is being proceeded 
     against, or has been tried or punished, in the United States; 
     or
       ``(B) a political offense.
       ``(2) Political offenses.--For purposes of this section, a 
     political offense does not include--

[[Page 682]]

       ``(A) a murder or other violent crime against the person of 
     a head of state of a foreign state, or of a member of the 
     family of the head of state;
       ``(B) an offense for which both the United States and the 
     requesting foreign government have the obligation pursuant to 
     a multilateral international agreement to--
       ``(i) extradite the person sought; or
       ``(ii) submit the case to the competent authorities for 
     decision as to prosecution; or
       ``(C) a conspiracy or attempt to commit any of the offenses 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B), or aiding or abetting 
     a person who commits or attempts to commit any such offenses.
       ``(h) Limitations on Factors for Consideration at 
     Hearings.--
       ``(1) In general.--At a hearing conducted under subsection 
     (a), the judicial officer conducting the hearing shall not 
     consider issues regarding--
       ``(A) humanitarian concerns;
       ``(B) the nature of the judicial system of the requesting 
     foreign government; and
       ``(C) whether the foreign government is seeking extradition 
     of a person for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the 
     person because of the race, religion, nationality or 
     political opinions of that person.
       ``(2) Consideration by secretary of state.--The issues 
     referred to in paragraph (1) shall be reserved for 
     consideration exclusively by the Secretary of State as 
     described in subsection (c)(2).
       ``(3) Additional consideration.--Notwithstanding the 
     certification requirements described in subsection (c)(2), 
     the Secretary of State may, within the sole discretion of the 
     Secretary--
       ``(A) in addition to considering the issues referred to in 
     paragraph (1) for purposes of certifying the filing of a 
     complaint under this section, consider those issues again in 
     exercising authority to surrender the person sought for 
     extradition in carrying out the procedures under section 3184 
     and 3186; and
       ``(B) impose conditions on surrender including those 
     provided in subsection (i).
       ``(i) Conditions of Surrender; Assurances.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of State may--
       ``(A) impose conditions upon the surrender of a person 
     sought for extradition under this section; and
       ``(B) require such assurances of compliance with those 
     conditions, as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       ``(2) Additional assurances.--In addition to imposing 
     conditions and requiring assurances under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall demand, as a condition of the extradition of 
     the person that is sought for extradition--
       ``(A) in every case, an assurance the Secretary determines 
     to be satisfactory that the person shall not be tried or 
     punished for an offense other than the offense for which the 
     person has been extradited, absent the consent of the United 
     States; and
       ``(B) in a case in which the offense for which extradition 
     is sought is punishable by death in the foreign country of 
     the requesting foreign government and is not so punishable 
     under the applicable laws in the United States, an assurance 
     the Secretary determines to be satisfactory that the death 
     penalty--
       ``(i) shall not be imposed; or
       ``(ii) if imposed, shall not be carried out.''.

     SEC. 1011. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 309 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 3181, by inserting ``, other than sections 
     3197 and 3198,'' after ``The provisions of this chapter'' 
     each place that term appears; and
       (2) in section 3186, by striking ``or 3185'' and inserting 
     ``, 3185, 3197 or 3198''.
       (b) Chapter Analysis.--The analysis for chapter 209 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``3197. Extradition for offenses not covered by a list treaty.
``3198. Extradition absent a treaty.''.

     SEC. 1012. TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF PERSONS IN CUSTODY FOR 
                   PROSECUTION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 306 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 4116. Temporary transfer for prosecution

       ``(a) State Defined.--In this section, the term `State' 
     includes a State of the United States, the District of 
     Columbia, and a commonwealth, territory, or possession of the 
     United States.
       ``(b) Authority of Attorney General With Respect to 
     Temporary Transfers.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (d), if a person 
     is in pretrial detention or is otherwise being held in 
     custody in a foreign country based upon a violation of the 
     law in that foreign country, and that person is found 
     extraditable to the United States by the competent 
     authorities of that foreign country while still in the 
     pretrial detention or custody, the Attorney General shall 
     have the authority--
       ``(A) to request the temporary transfer of that person to 
     the United States in order to face prosecution in a Federal 
     or State criminal proceeding;
       ``(B) to maintain the custody of that person while the 
     person is in the United States; and
       ``(C) to return that person to the foreign country at the 
     conclusion of the criminal prosecution, including any 
     imposition of sentence.
       ``(2) Requirements for requests by attorney general.--The 
     Attorney General shall make a request under paragraph (1) 
     only if the Attorney General determines, after consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, that the return of that person 
     to the foreign country in question would be consistent with 
     international obligations of the United States.
       ``(c) Authority of Attorney General With Respect to 
     Pretrial Detentions.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Authority of attorney general.--Subject to paragraph 
     (2) and subsection (d), the Attorney General shall have the 
     authority to carry out the actions described in subparagraph 
     (B), if--
       ``(i) a person is in pretrial detention or is otherwise 
     being held in custody in the United States based upon a 
     violation of Federal or State law, and that person is found 
     extraditable to a foreign country while still in the pretrial 
     detention or custody pursuant to section 3184, 3197, or 3198; 
     and
       ``(ii) a determination is made by the Secretary of State 
     and the Attorney General that the person will be surrendered.
       ``(B) Actions.--If the conditions described in subparagraph 
     (A) are met, the Attorney General shall have the authority 
     to--
       ``(i) temporarily transfer the person described in 
     subparagraph (A) to the foreign country of the foreign 
     government requesting the extradition of that person in order 
     to face prosecution;
       ``(ii) transport that person from the United States in 
     custody; and
       ``(iii) return that person in custody to the United States 
     from the foreign country.
       ``(2) Consent by state authorities.--If the person is being 
     held in custody for a violation of State law, the Attorney 
     General may exercise the authority described in paragraph (1) 
     if the appropriate State authorities give their consent to 
     the Attorney General.
       ``(3) Criterion for request.--The Attorney General shall 
     make a request under paragraph (1) only if the Attorney 
     General determines, after consultation with the Secretary of 
     State, that the return of the person sought for extradition 
     to the foreign country of the foreign government requesting 
     the extradition would be consistent with United States 
     international obligations.
       ``(4) Effect of temporary transfer.--With regard to any 
     person in pretrial detention--
       ``(A) a temporary transfer under this subsection shall 
     result in an interruption in the pretrial detention status of 
     that person; and
       ``(B) the right to challenge the conditions of confinement 
     pursuant to section 3142(f) does not extend to the right to 
     challenge the conditions of confinement in a foreign country 
     while in that foreign country temporarily under this 
     subsection.
       ``(d) Consent by Parties To Waive Prior Finding of Whether 
     a Person Is Extraditable.--The Attorney General may exercise 
     the authority described in subsections (b) and (c) absent a 
     prior finding that the person in custody is extraditable, if 
     the person, any appropriate State authorities in a case under 
     subsection (c), and the requesting foreign government give 
     their consent to waive that requirement.
       ``(e) Return of Persons.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the temporary transfer to or from the 
     United States of a person in custody for the purpose of 
     prosecution is provided for by this section, that person 
     shall be returned to the United States or to the foreign 
     country from which the person is transferred on completion of 
     the proceedings upon which the transfer was based.
       ``(2) Statutory interpretation with respect to immigration 
     laws.--In no event shall the return of a person under 
     paragraph (1) require extradition proceedings or proceedings 
     under the immigration laws.
       ``(3) Certain rights and remedies barred.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, a person temporarily transferred 
     to the United States pursuant to this section shall not be 
     entitled to apply for or obtain any right or remedy under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), 
     including the right to apply for or be granted asylum or 
     withholding of deportation.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 306 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``4116. Temporary transfer for prosecution.''.

     SEC. 1013. PROHIBITING FUGITIVES FROM BENEFITING FROM 
                   FUGITIVE STATUS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 163 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 2466. Fugitive disentitlement

       ``A person may not use the resources of the courts of the 
     United States in furtherance of a claim in any related civil 
     forfeiture action or a claim in third party proceedings in 
     any related criminal forfeiture action if that person--
       ``(1) purposely leaves the jurisdiction of the United 
     States;
       ``(2) declines to enter or reenter the United States to 
     submit to its jurisdiction; or
       ``(3) otherwise evades the jurisdiction of the court in 
     which a criminal case is pending against the person.''.

[[Page 683]]

       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 163 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``2466. Fugitive disentitlement.''.

     SEC. 1014. TRANSFER OF FOREIGN PRISONERS TO SERVE SENTENCES 
                   IN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

       Section 4100(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     in the third sentence by inserting ``, unless otherwise 
     provided by treaty,'' before ``an offender''.

     SEC. 1015. TRANSIT OF FUGITIVES FOR PROSECUTION IN FOREIGN 
                   COUNTRIES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 305 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 4087. Transit through the United States of persons 
       wanted in a foreign country

       ``(a) In General.--The Attorney General may, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, permit the 
     temporary transit through the United States of a person 
     wanted for prosecution or imposition of sentence in a foreign 
     country.
       ``(b) Limitation on Judicial Review.--A determination by 
     the Attorney General to permit or not to permit a temporary 
     transit described in subsection (a) shall not be subject to 
     judicial review.
       ``(c) Custody.--If the Attorney General permits a temporary 
     transit under subsection (a), Federal law enforcement 
     personnel may hold the person subject to that transit in 
     custody during the transit of the person through the United 
     States.
       ``(d) Conditions Applicable to Persons Subject to Temporary 
     Transit.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     person who is subject to a temporary transit through the 
     United States under this section shall--
       ``(1) be required to have only such documents as the 
     Attorney General shall require;
       ``(2) not be considered to be admitted or paroled into the 
     United States; and
       ``(3) not be entitled to apply for or obtain any right or 
     remedy under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101 et seq.), including the right to apply for or be granted 
     asylum or withholding of deportation.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 305 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``4087. Transit through the United States of persons wanted in a 
              foreign country.''.

  CHAPTER 5--SEIZING AND FORFEITING ASSETS OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINALS

     SEC. 1016. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF ANTI-MONEY 
                   LAUNDERING ORDERS.

       (a) Reporting Violations.--Section 5324(a) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``, 
     or the reporting requirements imposed by an order issued 
     pursuant to section 5326'' after ``any such section''; and
       (2) in each of paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting ``, or 
     a report required under any order issued pursuant to section 
     5326'' before the semicolon.
       (b) Penalties.--Sections 5321(a)(1), 5322(a), and 5322(b) 
     of title 31, United States Code, are each amended by 
     inserting ``or order issued'' after ``or a regulation 
     prescribed'' each place that term appears.

     SEC. 1017. CRACKING DOWN ON ILLEGAL MONEY TRANSMITTING 
                   BUSINESSES.

       Section 1960 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Scienter Requirement.--For the purposes of proving a 
     violation of this section involving an illegal money 
     transmitting business (as defined in subsection (b)(1)(A))--
       ``(1) it shall be sufficient for the government to prove 
     that the defendant knew that the money transmitting business 
     lacked a license required by State law; and
       ``(2) it shall not be necessary to show that the defendant 
     knew that the operation of such a business without the 
     required license was an offense punishable as a felony or 
     misdemeanor under State law.''.

     SEC. 1018. EXPANDING CIVIL MONEY LAUNDERING LAWS TO REACH 
                   FOREIGN PERSONS.

       Section 1956(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
       (2) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) For purposes of adjudicating an action filed or 
     enforcing a penalty ordered under this section, the district 
     courts shall have jurisdiction over any foreign person, 
     including any financial institution registered in a foreign 
     country, that commits an offense under subsection (a) 
     involving a financial transaction that occurs in whole or in 
     part in the United States, if service of process upon the 
     foreign person is made in accordance with the Federal Rules 
     of Civil Procedure or the law of the foreign country in which 
     the foreign person is found.
       ``(3) The court may issue a pretrial restraining order or 
     take any other action necessary to ensure that any bank 
     account or other property held by the defendant in the United 
     States is available to satisfy a judgment under this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 1019. PUNISHMENT OF MONEY LAUNDERING THROUGH FOREIGN 
                   BANKS.

       Section 1956(c)(6) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(6) the term `financial institution' includes any 
     financial institution described in section 5312(a)(2) of 
     title 31, United States Code, or the regulations promulgated 
     thereunder, as well as any foreign bank (as defined in 
     section 1(b)(7) of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 
     U.S.C. 3101(7));''.

     SEC. 1020. AUTHORITY TO ORDER CONVICTED CRIMINALS TO RETURN 
                   PROPERTY LOCATED ABROAD.

       (a) Order of Forfeiture.--Section 413(p) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853(p)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following: ``In the case of property described in 
     paragraph (3), the court may, in addition, order the 
     defendant to return the property to the jurisdiction of the 
     court so that the property may be seized and forfeited.''.
       (b) Pretrial Restraining Order.--Section 413(e) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853(e)) is amended by 
     inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4)(A) Pursuant to its authority to enter a pretrial 
     restraining order under this section, including its authority 
     to restrain any property forfeitable as substitute assets, 
     the court may also order the defendant to repatriate any 
     property subject to forfeiture pending trial, and to deposit 
     that property in the registry of the court, or with the 
     United States Marshals Service or the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, in an interest-bearing account.
       ``(B) Failure to comply with an order under this 
     subsection, or an order to repatriate property under 
     subsection (p), shall be punishable as a civil or criminal 
     contempt of court, and may also result in an enhancement of 
     the sentence for the offense giving rise to the forfeiture 
     under the obstruction of justice provision of section 3C1.1 
     of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.''.

     SEC. 1021. ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMONS AUTHORITY UNDER THE BANK 
                   SECRECY ACT.

       Section 5318(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Scope of power.--The Secretary of the Treasury may 
     take any action described in paragraph (3) or (4) of 
     subsection (a) for the purpose of--
       ``(A) determining compliance with the rules of this 
     subchapter or any regulation issued under this subchapter; or
       ``(B) civil enforcement of violations of this subchapter, 
     section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, section 411 
     of the National Housing Act, or chapter 2 of Public Law 91-
     508 (12 U.S.C. 1951 et seq.), or any regulation issued under 
     any such provision.''.

     SEC. 1022. EXEMPTING FINANCIAL ENFORCEMENT DATA FROM 
                   UNNECESSARY DISCLOSURE.

       (a) IEEPA.--Section 203 of the International Emergency 
     Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Exemptions from disclosure.--Information obtained 
     under this title before or after the enactment of this 
     section may be withheld only to the extent permitted by 
     statute, except that information submitted, obtained, or 
     considered in connection with any transaction prohibited 
     under this title, including license applications, licenses or 
     other authorizations, information or evidence obtained in the 
     course of any investigation, and information obtained or 
     furnished under this title in connection with international 
     agreements, treaties, or obligations shall be withheld from 
     public disclosure, and shall not be subject to disclosure 
     under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, unless the 
     release of the information is determined by the President to 
     be in the national interest.''.
       (b) Trading With the Enemy Act.--Section 5(b) of the 
     Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as 
     paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Exemptions from disclosure.--Information obtained 
     under this title before or after the enactment of this 
     section may be withheld only to the extent permitted by 
     statute, except that information submitted, obtained, or 
     considered in connection with any transaction prohibited 
     under this title, including license applications, licenses or 
     other authorizations, information or evidence obtained in the 
     course of any investigation, and information obtained or 
     furnished under this title in connection with international 
     agreements, treaties, or obligations shall be withheld from 
     public disclosure, and shall not be subject to disclosure 
     under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, unless the 
     release of the information is determined by the President to 
     be in the national interest.''.

     SEC. 1023. CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES UNDER THE 
                   INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS ACT.

       (a) Increased Civil Penalty.--Section 206(a) of the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 
     1705(a)), is amended by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting 
     ``$50,000''.

[[Page 684]]

       (b) Increased Criminal Fine.--Section 206(b) of the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 
     1705(b)), is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Whoever willfully violates any license, order, or 
     regulation issued under this chapter shall be fined not more 
     that $1,000,000 if an organization (as defined in section 18 
     of title 18, United States Code), and not more than $250,000, 
     imprisoned not more that 10 years, or both, if an 
     individual.''.

     SEC. 1024. ATTEMPTED VIOLATIONS OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY 
                   ACT.

       Section 16 of the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. 
     App. 16) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or attempt to 
     violate'' after ``violate'' each time it appears; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``or attempts to 
     violate'' after ``violates''.

     SEC. 1025. JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN FINANCIAL CRIMES 
                   COMMITTED ABROAD.

       Section 1029 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Jurisdiction Over Certain Financial Crimes Committed 
     Abroad.--Any person who, outside the jurisdiction of the 
     United States, engages in any act that, if committed within 
     the jurisdiction of the United States, would constitute an 
     offense under subsection (a) or (b), shall be subject to the 
     same penalties as if that offense had been committed in the 
     United States, if the act--
       ``(1) involves an access device issued, owned, managed, or 
     controlled by a financial institution, account issuer, credit 
     card system member, or other entity within the jurisdiction 
     of the United States; and
       ``(2) causes, or if completed would have caused, a transfer 
     of funds from or a loss to an entity listed in paragraph 
     (1).''.

     CHAPTER 6--PROMOTING GLOBAL COOPERATION IN THE FIGHT AGAINST 
                          INTERNATIONAL CRIME

     SEC. 1026. STREAMLINED PROCEDURES FOR EXECUTION OF MLAT 
                   REQUESTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 117 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1790. Assistance to foreign authorities

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Presentation of requests.--The Attorney General may 
     present a request made by a foreign government for assistance 
     with respect to a foreign investigation, prosecution, or 
     proceeding regarding a criminal matter pursuant to a treaty, 
     convention, or executive agreement for mutual legal 
     assistance between the United States and that government or 
     in accordance with section 1782, the execution of which 
     requires or appears to require the use of compulsory measures 
     in more than 1 judicial district, to a judge or judge 
     magistrate of--
       ``(A) any 1 of the districts in which persons who may be 
     required to appear to testify or produce evidence or 
     information reside or are found, or in which evidence or 
     information to be produced is located; or
       ``(B) the United States District Court for the District of 
     Columbia.
       ``(2) Authority of court.--A judge or judge magistrate to 
     whom a request for assistance is presented under paragraph 
     (1) shall have the authority to issue those orders necessary 
     to execute the request including orders appointing a person 
     to direct the taking of testimony or statements and the 
     production of evidence or information, of whatever nature and 
     in whatever form, in execution of the request.
       ``(b) Authority of Appointed Persons.--A person appointed 
     under subsection (a)(2) shall have the authority to--
       ``(1) issue orders for the taking of testimony or 
     statements and the production of evidence or information, 
     which orders may be served at any place within the United 
     States;
       ``(2) administer any necessary oath; and
       ``(3) take testimony or statements and receive evidence and 
     information.
       ``(c) Persons Ordered To Appear.--A person ordered pursuant 
     to subsection (b)(1) to appear outside the district in which 
     that person resides or is found may, not later than 10 days 
     after receipt of the order--
       ``(1) file with the judge or judge magistrate who 
     authorized execution of the request a motion to appear in the 
     district in which that person resides or is found or in which 
     the evidence or information is located; or
       ``(2) provide written notice, requesting appearance in the 
     district in which the person resides or is found or in which 
     the evidence or information is located, to the person issuing 
     the order to appear, who shall advise the judge or judge 
     magistrate authorizing execution.
       ``(d) Transfer of Requests.--
       ``(1) In general.--The judge or judge magistrate may 
     transfer a request under subsection (c), or that portion 
     requiring the appearance of that person, to the other 
     district if--
       ``(A) the inconvenience to the person is substantial; and
       ``(B) the transfer is unlikely to adversely affect the 
     effective or timely execution of the request or a portion 
     thereof.
       ``(2) Execution.--Upon transfer, the judge or judge 
     magistrate to whom the request or a portion thereof is 
     transferred shall complete its execution in accordance with 
     subsections (a) and (b).''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 117 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``1790. Assistance to foreign authorities.''.

     SEC. 1027. TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF INCARCERATED WITNESSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 3508 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 3508. Temporary transfer of witnesses in custody'';

       (2) by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Transfer Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the testimony of a person who is 
     serving a sentence, in pretrial detention, or otherwise being 
     held in custody in the United States, is needed in a foreign 
     criminal proceeding, the Attorney General shall have the 
     authority to--
       ``(A) temporarily transfer that person to the foreign 
     country for the purpose of giving the testimony;
       ``(B) transport that person from the United States in 
     custody;
       ``(C) make appropriate arrangements for custody for that 
     person while outside the United States; and
       ``(D) return that person in custody to the United States 
     from the foreign country.
       ``(2) Persons held for state law violations.--If the person 
     is being held in custody for a violation of State law, the 
     Attorney General may exercise the authority described in this 
     subsection if the appropriate State authorities give their 
     consent.
       ``(c) Return of Persons Transferred.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the transfer to or from the United 
     States of a person in custody for the purpose of giving 
     testimony is provided for by treaty or convention, by this 
     section, or both, that person shall be returned to the United 
     States, or to the foreign country from which the person is 
     transferred.
       ``(2) Limitation.--In no event shall the return of a person 
     under this subsection require any request for extradition or 
     extradition proceedings, or require that person to be subject 
     to deportation or exclusion proceedings under the laws of the 
     United States, or the foreign country from which the person 
     is transferred.
       ``(d) Applicability of International Agreements.--If there 
     is an international agreement between the United States and 
     the foreign country in which a witness is being held in 
     custody or to which the witness will be transferred from the 
     United States, that provides for the transfer, custody, and 
     return of those witnesses, the terms and conditions of that 
     international agreement shall apply. If there is no such 
     international agreement, the Attorney General may exercise 
     the authority described in subsections (a) and (b) if both 
     the foreign country and the witness give their consent.
       ``(e) Rights of Persons Transferred.--
       ``(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person 
     held in custody in a foreign country who is transferred to 
     the United States pursuant to this section for the purpose of 
     giving testimony--
       ``(A) shall not by reason of that transfer, during the 
     period that person is present in the United States pursuant 
     to that transfer, be entitled to apply for or obtain any 
     right or remedy under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
     including the right to apply for or be granted asylum or 
     withholding of deportation or any right to remain in the 
     United States under any other law; and
       ``(B) may be summarily removed from the United States upon 
     order of the Attorney General.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may 
     be construed to create any substantive or procedural right or 
     benefit to remain in the United States that is legally 
     enforceable in a court of law of the United States or of a 
     State by any party against the United States or its agencies 
     or officers.
       ``(f) Consistency With International Obligations.--The 
     Attorney General shall not take any action under this section 
     to transfer or return a person to a foreign country unless 
     the Attorney General determines, after consultation with the 
     Secretary of State, that transfer or return would be 
     consistent with the international obligations of the United 
     States. A determination by the Attorney General under this 
     subsection shall not be subject to judicial review by any 
     court.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 3508 and inserting the 
     following:

``3508. Temporary transfer of witnesses in custody.''.

     SEC. 1028. TRAINING OF FOREIGN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

       Section 660(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2420(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) with respect to assistance, including training, 
     provided for antiterrorism purposes.''.

[[Page 685]]



     SEC. 1029. DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO USE FORFEITURE 
                   PROCEEDS.

       Section 524(c)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by--
       (1) redesignating subparagraph (I) beginning with ``after 
     all'' as subparagraph (J);
       (2) in subparagraph (J) as redesignated, striking the 
     period and inserting ``, and''; and
       (3) adding at the end the following:
       ``(J) at the discretion of the Attorney General, payments 
     to return forfeited property repatriated to the United States 
     by a foreign government or others acting at the direction of 
     a foreign government, and interest earned on the property, 
     if--
       ``(i) a final foreign judgment entered against a foreign 
     government or those acting at its direction, which foreign 
     judgment was based on the measures, such as seizure and 
     repatriation of property, that resulted in deposit of the 
     funds into the Fund;
       ``(ii) the foreign judgment was entered and presented to 
     the Attorney General not later than 5 years after the date on 
     which the property was repatriated to the United States;
       ``(iii) the foreign government or those acting at its 
     direction vigorously defended its actions under its own laws; 
     and
       ``(iv) the amount of the disbursement does not exceed the 
     amount of funds deposited to the Fund, plus interest earned 
     on those funds pursuant to section 524(c)(5), less any awards 
     and equitable shares paid by the Fund to the foreign 
     government or those acting at its direction in connection 
     with a particular case.''.
                 Subtitle B--International Drug Control

     SEC. 1201. ANNUAL COUNTRY PLANS FOR DRUG-TRANSIT AND DRUG 
                   PRODUCING COUNTRIES.

       Section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2291j) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Country Plans for Major Drug-Transit and Major 
     Illicit Drug Producing Countries.--
       ``(1) Annual requirement.--Not later than November 1 of 
     each year, the President shall submit to Congress a separate 
     plan for the activities to be undertaken by the United States 
     in order to address drug-trafficking and other drug-related 
     matters in each country described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Covered countries.--A country referred to in 
     paragraph (1) is any country--
       ``(A) that is determined by the President to be a major 
     drug-transit county or a major illicit drug producing 
     country; and
       ``(B) with which the United States is maintaining 
     diplomatic relations.
       ``(3) Form.--Each plan under paragraph (1) shall be 
     submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified 
     annex.''.

     SEC. 1202. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR COUNTERNARCOTICS 
                   ACTIVITIES AND ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no funds appropriated for any fiscal year after fiscal 
     year 1999 for the counterdrug or counternarcotics activities 
     of the United States (including funds appropriated for 
     assistance to other countries for such activities) may be 
     obligated or expended for such activities during the period 
     beginning on November 1 of such fiscal year and ending on the 
     later of--
       (1) the date of the notification required in such fiscal 
     year under subsection (h) of section 490 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j); or
       (2) the date of the submittal of the plans required by 
     subsection (i) of that section, as amended by section 1201 of 
     this title.
       (b) Limitation on Override.--No provision of law enacted 
     after the date of enactment of this Act may be construed to 
     override the prohibition set forth in subsection (a) unless 
     such provision specifically refers to such prohibition in 
     effecting the override.

     SEC. 1203. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COLOMBIA.

       It is the sense of Congress--
       (1) that the provision of counternarcotics assistance to 
     Colombia will not meet the purpose of the provision of such 
     assistance without meaningful guarantees that no production, 
     manufacturing, or transportation of narcotics takes place in 
     any area in Colombia designated as a so-called ``buffer 
     zone'';
       (2) to be concerned regarding continuing reports of human 
     rights violations by units of the Colombia military; and
       (3) to reaffirm the policy that no aid, supplies, or other 
     assistance should be provided to any military or law 
     enforcement unit of a foreign county if such unit has engaged 
     in any violation of human rights.

     SEC. 1204. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING MEXICO.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the United States and the Government of Mexico should 
     conclude a maritime agreement for purposes of improving 
     cooperation between the United States and Mexico in the 
     interdiction of seaborne drug smuggling;
       (2) the maritime agreement should be similar to agreements 
     between the United States and governments of other countries 
     in the Caribbean and Latin America which have proven 
     beneficial to the counterdrug activities of the countries 
     concerned;
       (3) the Government of Mexico should carry through on its 
     promises to the United States Government regarding 
     cooperation between such governments in counternarcotics 
     activities, including cooperation in matters relating to 
     extradition, prosecutions for money laundering, and other 
     matters;
       (4) the Government of Mexico is to be commended for its 
     cooperation with and support of the United States Government 
     in many law enforcement matters; and
       (5) the continuing investigation by the Government of 
     Mexico of United States law enforcement personnel who 
     participated in the money laundering sting operation known as 
     CASABLANCA is an attempt by that government to embarrass and 
     harass such personnel even though such personnel were acting 
     within the scope of United States law and Mexican law in 
     pursuing drug traffickers and money launderers operating both 
     in the United States and in Mexico.

     SEC. 1205. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING IRAN.

       It is the sense of Congress to express concern that Iran 
     was not included on the most recent list of countries 
     determined to be major drug-transit countries or major 
     illicit drug producing countries despite recent evidence that 
     Iran is a production and transfer point for narcotics.

     SEC. 1206. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SYRIA.

       It is the sense of Congress to express concern that Syria 
     was not included on the most recent list of countries 
     determined to be major drug-transit countries or major 
     illicit drug producing countries despite recent evidence that 
     Syria is a trans-shipment point for narcotics from Turkey and 
     from Afghanistan.

     SEC. 1207. BRAZIL.

       (a) King Air Aircraft for DEA Activities in Brazil.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator 
     of the Drug Enforcement Administration may--
       (1) purchase a King Air aircraft for purposes of 
     Administration activities in Brazil; and
       (2) station the aircraft in Brazil for purposes of such 
     activities.
       (b) Sense of Congress Regarding Assistance to Brazil.--It 
     is the sense of Congress--
       (1) to encourage the President to review the nature of the 
     cooperation between the United States and Brazil in 
     counternarcotics activities;
       (2) to recognize the extraordinary threat that narcotics 
     trafficking poses to the national security of Brazil and to 
     the national security of the United States;
       (3) to applaud the efforts of the Brazil Government to 
     control drug trafficking in and through the Amazon River 
     basin;
       (4) to applaud the enactment of legislation by the Brazil 
     Congress that--
       (A) authorizes appropriate personnel to damage, render 
     inoperative, or destroy aircraft within Brazil territory that 
     are reasonably suspected to be engaged primarily in 
     trafficking in illicit narcotics; and
       (B) contains measures to protect against the loss of 
     innocent life during activities referred to in subparagraph 
     (A), including a effective measure to identify and warn 
     aircraft before the use of force; and
       (5) to urge the President to issue a statement outlining 
     the matters referred to in paragraphs (1) through (4) in 
     order to prevent any interruption in the current provision by 
     the United States of operational, logistical, technical, 
     administrative, and intelligence assistance to Brazil.

     SEC. 1208. JAMAICA.

       (a) Requirement for Aerial Survey.--The President shall 
     take appropriate actions in order to provide for a 
     comprehensive aerial survey of Jamaica for purposes of 
     determining the quantity and location of any marijuana and 
     other illegal drugs being grown in Jamaica.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress to 
     express disappointment regarding the lack of progress and 
     cooperation between the United States and Jamaica in 
     counternarcotics activities.

     SEC. 1209. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING NORTH KOREA.

       It is the sense of Congress--
       (1) to be concerned regarding an increase in the number of 
     reports of drug trafficking in and through North Korea;
       (2) to encourage the President to submit to Congress the 
     reports, if any, required by law regarding the production and 
     trafficking of narcotics in or through North Korea; and
       (3) to express concern that the Department of State has 
     evaded its obligations with respect to North Korea under 
     section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2291j), and thereby diminished the significance to the United 
     States of narcotics production and transit in and through 
     North Korea, in order to enhance cultural exchanges between 
     the United States and North Korea.
           Subtitle C--Foreign Military Counter-Drug Support

     SEC. 1301. REPORT.

       (a) Monthly Report.--The Department of State and the 
     Department of Defense shall report monthly to the Committee 
     on International Relations and the Committee on National 
     Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the 
     Senate on the current status of any

[[Page 686]]

     formal letter of request for any foreign military sales of 
     counter narcotics-related assistance from the head of any 
     police, military, or other appropriate security agency 
     official in an Andean Country. This report shall include--
       (1) the date the initial request was made;
       (2) the current status of the request;
       (3) the remaining approvals needed to process the request;
       (4) the date that the request has been approved by all 
     relevant departments and agencies; and
       (5) the expected delivery time for the requested material.
       (b) Analysis.--The Department of State shall review and 
     forward to Congress an analysis of the current foreign 
     military sales program within 180 days (from time of 
     enactment). This review shall focus on--
       (1) what, if any, are the current delays in the foreign 
     military sales program;
       (2) the manner in which the program can be streamlined;
       (3) the manner in which the efficiency of processing 
     requested equipment can be increased; and
       (4) what, if any, legislative changes are necessary to 
     improve the program so that the time from request to delivery 
     is minimized.
                Subtitle D--Money Laundering Deterrence

     SEC. 1401. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Money Laundering 
     Deterrence Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 1402. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the dollar amount involved in international money 
     laundering likely exceeds $500,000,000,000 annually;
       (2) organized crime groups are continually devising new 
     methods to launder the proceeds of illegal activities in an 
     effort to subvert the transaction reporting requirements of 
     subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, 
     and chapter 2 of Public Law 91-508;
       (3) a number of methods to launder the proceeds of criminal 
     activity were identified and described in congressional 
     hearings, including the use of financial service providers 
     that are not depository institutions, such as money 
     transmitters and check cashing services, the purchase and 
     resale of durable goods, and the exchange of foreign currency 
     in the so-called ``black market'';
       (4) recent successes in combating domestic money laundering 
     have involved the application of the heretofore seldom-used 
     authority granted to the Secretary of the Treasury and the 
     cooperative efforts of Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement agencies; and
       (5) such successes have been exemplified by the 
     implementation of the geographic targeting order in New York 
     City and through the work of the El Dorado task force, a 
     group comprised of agents of Department of the Treasury law 
     enforcement agencies, New York State troopers, and New York 
     City police officers.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to amend subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, 
     United States Code, to provide the law enforcement community 
     with the necessary legal authority to combat money 
     laundering;
       (2) to broaden the law enforcement community's access to 
     transactional information already being collected that 
     relates to coins and currency received in a nonfinancial 
     trade or business; and
       (3) to express the sense of Congress that the Secretary of 
     the Treasury should expedite the development and 
     implementation of controls designed to deter money laundering 
     activities at certain types of financial institutions.

     SEC. 1403. REPORTING OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Amendment Relating to Civil Liability Immunity for 
     Disclosures.--Section 5318(g)(3) of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Liability for disclosures.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, an exempted entity, as defined in subparagraph (B), 
     shall not be liable to any person under any law or regulation 
     of the United States, any constitution, law, or regulation of 
     any State or political subdivision thereof, or under any 
     contract or other legally enforceable agreement (including 
     any arbitration agreement), for a disclosure described in 
     subparagraph (B)(i), or for any failure to notify the person 
     who is the subject of the disclosure or any other person 
     identified in the disclosure.
       ``(B) Exempted entities.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the term `exempted entity' means--
       ``(i) any financial institution that--

       ``(I) makes a disclosure of any possible violation of law 
     or regulation to an appropriate government agency; or
       ``(II) makes a disclosure pursuant to this subsection or 
     any other authority;

       ``(ii) any director, officer, employee, or agent of an 
     institution referred to in clause (i) who makes, or requires 
     another to make a disclosure referred to in clause (i); and
       ``(iii) any independent public accountant who audits any 
     such financial institution and makes a disclosure described 
     in clause (i).''.
       (b) Prohibition on Notification of Disclosures.--Section 
     5318(g)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(2) Notification prohibited.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a financial institution, any 
     director, officer, employee, or agent of any financial 
     institution, or any independent public accountant who audits 
     any such financial institution, voluntarily or pursuant to 
     this section or any other authority, reports a suspicious 
     transaction to an appropriate government agency--
       ``(i) the financial institution, director, officer, 
     employee, agent, or accountant may not notify any person 
     involved in the transaction that the transaction has been 
     reported and may not disclose any information included in the 
     report to any such person; and
       ``(ii) no other person, including any officer or employee 
     of any government, who has any knowledge that such report was 
     made, may disclose to any other person or government agency 
     the fact that such report was made.
       ``(B) Exception for use by government officers in official 
     capacity.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the use or 
     disclosure by an officer or employee of an appropriate 
     government agency of any report under this subsection, or 
     information included in the report, to the extent that the 
     use is made solely in conjunction with the performance of the 
     official duties of the officer or employee to conduct or 
     assist in the conduct of a law enforcement or regulatory 
     inquiry, investigation, or proceeding.
       ``(C) Coordination with paragraph (5).--Subparagraph (A) 
     shall not be construed to prohibit any financial institution, 
     or any director, officer, employee, or agent of a financial 
     institution, from including, in a written employment 
     reference that is provided in accordance with paragraph (5) 
     in response to a request from another financial institution, 
     information that was included in a report to which 
     subparagraph (A) applies, but such written employment 
     reference may not disclose that the information was also 
     included in any such report or that a report was made.''.
       (c) Authorization To Include Suspicions of Illegal Activity 
     in Employment References.--Section 5318(g) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5) Employment references may include suspicions of 
     involvement in illegal activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, and subject to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph and 
     paragraph (2)(C), any financial institution, and any 
     director, officer, employee, or agent of a financial 
     institution, may disclose, in any written employment 
     reference relating to a current or former institution-
     affiliated party of the institution that is provided to 
     another financial institution in response to a request from 
     the other institution, information concerning the possible 
     involvement of the institution-affiliated party in any 
     suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of 
     law or regulation.
       ``(B) Limit on liability for disclosures.--A financial 
     institution, and any director, officer, employee, or agent of 
     the institution, shall not be liable to any person under any 
     law or regulation of the United States, any constitution, 
     law, or regulation of any State or political subdivision 
     thereof, or under any contract or other legally enforceable 
     agreement (including any arbitration agreement), for any 
     disclosure under subparagraph (A), to the extent that--
       ``(i) the disclosure does not contain information that the 
     institution, director, officer, employee, agent, or 
     accountant knows to be false; and
       ``(ii) the institution, director, officer, employee, agent, 
     or accountant has not acted with malice or with reckless 
     disregard for the truth in making the disclosure.
       ``(C) Institution-affiliated party defined.--For purposes 
     of this paragraph, the term `institution-affiliated party' 
     has the same meaning as in section 3(u) of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Act, except that section 3(u) shall be 
     applied by substituting the term `financial institution' for 
     the term `insured depository institution'.''.
       (d) Amendments Relating to Availability of Suspicious 
     Activity Reports for Other Agencies.--Section 5319 of title 
     31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``5314, or 5316'' 
     and inserting ``5313A, 5314, 5316, or 5318(g)'';
       (2) in the last sentence, by inserting ``under section 
     5313, 5313A, 5314, 5316, or 5318(g)'' after ``records of 
     reports''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary of 
     the Treasury may permit the dissemination of information in 
     any such report to any self-regulatory organization (as 
     defined in section 3(a)(26) of the Securities Exchange Act of 
     1934), if the Securities and Exchange Commission determines 
     that the dissemination is necessary or appropriate to permit 
     the self-regulatory organization to perform its functions 
     under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and regulations 
     prescribed under that Act.''.

     SEC. 1404. EXPANSION OF SCOPE OF SUMMONS POWER.

       Section 5318(b)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``examinations to determine compliance 
     with the requirements of this subchapter, section 21 of the

[[Page 687]]

     Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and chapter 2 of Public Law 
     91-508 and regulations prescribed pursuant to those 
     provisions, investigations relating to reports filed by 
     financial institutions or other persons pursuant to any such 
     provision or regulation, and'' after ``in connection with''.

     SEC. 1405. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING 
                   ORDERS AND CERTAIN RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Civil Penalty for Violation of Targeting Order.--
     Section 5321(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``or order issued'' after ``regulation 
     prescribed''.
       (b) Criminal Penalties for Violation of Targeting Order.--
     Subsections (a) and (b) of section 5322 of title 31, United 
     States Code, are amended by inserting ``or order issued'' 
     after ``regulation prescribed'' each place that term appears.
       (c) Structuring Transactions To Evade Targeting Order or 
     Certain Recordkeeping Requirements.--Section 5324(a) of title 
     31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting a comma after ``shall'';
       (2) by striking ``section--'' and inserting ``section, the 
     reporting requirements imposed by any order issued under 
     section 5326, or the recordkeeping requirements imposed by 
     any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 of Public Law       91-
     508--''; and
       (3) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting       ``, to 
     file a report required by any order issued under section 
     5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to any 
     regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act or section 123 of Public Law 91-508'' after 
     ``regulation prescribed under any such section'' each place 
     that term appears.
       (d) Increase in Civil Penalties for Violation of Certain 
     Recordkeeping Requirements.--
       (1) Federal deposit insurance act.--Section 21(j)(1) of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1829b(j)(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting ``the greater 
     of--
       ``(A) the amount (not to exceed $100,000) involved in the 
     transaction (if any) with respect to which the violation 
     occurred; or
       ``(B) $25,000''.
       (2) Public law 91-508.--Section 125(a) of Public Law 91-508 
     (12 U.S.C. 1955(a)) is amended by striking ``$10,000'' and 
     inserting ``the greater of--
       ``(1) the amount (not to exceed $100,000) involved in the 
     transaction (if any) with respect to which the violation 
     occurred; or
       ``(2) $25,000''.
       (e) Criminal Penalties for Violation of Certain 
     Recordkeeping Requirements.--
       (1) Section 126.--Section 126 of Public Law 91-508 (12 
     U.S.C. 1956) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 126. CRIMINAL PENALTY.

       ``A person that willfully violates this chapter, section 21 
     of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or a regulation 
     prescribed under this chapter or that section 21, shall be 
     fined not more than $250,000, or imprisoned for not more than 
     5 years, or both.''.
       (2) Section 127.--Section 127 of Public Law 91-508 (12 
     U.S.C. 1957) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 127. ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL PENALTY IN CERTAIN CASES.

       ``A person that willfully violates this chapter, section 21 
     of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or a regulation 
     prescribed under this chapter or that section 21, while 
     violating another law of the United States or as part of a 
     pattern of any illegal activity involving more than $100,000 
     in a 12-month period, shall be fined not more than $500,000, 
     imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.''.

     SEC. 1406. REPEAL OF CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 407(d) of the Money Laundering Suppression Act of 
     1994 (31 U.S.C. 5311 note) is amended by striking 
     ``subsection (c)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)(2)''.

     SEC. 1407. LIMITED EXEMPTION FROM PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT.

       Section 3518(c)(1) of title 44, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) pursuant to regulations prescribed or orders issued 
     by the Secretary of the Treasury under section 5318(h) or 
     5326 of title 31;''.

     SEC. 1408. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the 
     Treasury should, in conjunction with the Board of Governors 
     of the Federal Reserve System, expedite the promulgation of 
     ``know your customer'' regulations for financial 
     institutions.
    Subtitle E--Additional Funding For Source and Interdiction Zone 
                               Countries

     SEC. 1501. SOURCE ZONE COUNTRIES.

       In addition to other amounts appropriated for Colombia and 
     Peru for counternarcotics operations for a fiscal year, there 
     is authorized to be appropriated--
       (1) $20,000,000 for Peru for each of fiscal years 2000 and 
     2001 for supporting additional surveillance, pursuit of drug 
     aircraft, and general support for counternarcotics 
     operations;
       (2) $75,000,000 for Colombia for each of fiscal years 2000 
     and 2001, for supporting additional surveillance, pursuit of 
     drug aircraft, and general support for counternarcotics 
     operations, including the acquisition of a minimum of 3 
     Blackhawk helicopters and 2 aerostats; and
       (3) $52,000,000 for Bolivian counternarcotics programs for 
     fiscal year 2000, including high technology detection 
     equipment for the Chapare region, institution building, and 
     law enforcement support.

     SEC. 1502. CENTRAL AMERICA.

       In addition to the other amounts appropriated, under this 
     Act or any other provision of law, for counternarcotics 
     matters for countries in Central America, there is authorized 
     to be appropriated $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 for 
     enhanced efforts in counternarcotics matters by the United 
     States Coast Guard, the United States Customs Service, and 
     other law enforcement agencies.
                   TITLE II--DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT
                     Subtitle A--Criminal Offenders

     SEC. 2001. APPREHENSION AND PROCEDURAL TREATMENT OF ARMED 
                   VIOLENT CRIMINALS.

       (a) Congressional Oversight.--
       (1) Report to attorney general.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General 
     shall require each United States Attorney to--
       (A) establish an armed violent criminal apprehension task 
     force comprised of appropriate law enforcement 
     representatives, which shall be responsible for developing 
     strategies for removing armed violent criminals from the 
     streets; and
       (B) not less frequently than monthly, report to the 
     Attorney General on the number of defendants charged with, or 
     convicted of, violating section 922(g) or 924 of title 18, 
     United States Code, in the district for which the United 
     States Attorney is appointed.
       (2) Report to congress.--The Attorney General shall prepare 
     and submit a report to the Congress once every 6 months 
     detailing the contents of the reports submitted pursuant to 
     paragraph (1)(B).
       (b) Pretrial Detention For Possession of Firearms or 
     Explosives By Convicted Felons.--Section 3156(a)(4) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) an offense that is a violation of section 842(i) or 
     922(g) (relating to possession of explosives or firearms by 
     convicted felons); and''.
       (c) Conforming Scienter Change For Transferring a Firearm 
     to Commit a Crime of Violence.--Section 924(h) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or having 
     reasonable cause to believe'' after ``knowing''.
       (d) Firearms Possession By Violent Felons and Serious Drug 
     Offenders.--Section 924(a)(2) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(2) Whoever'' and inserting ``(2)(A) 
     Except as provided in subparagraph (B), any person who''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court 
     shall not grant a probationary sentence to a person who has 
     more than 1 previous conviction for a violent felony or a 
     serious drug offense, committed under different 
     circumstances.''.

     SEC. 2002. CRIMINAL ATTEMPT.

       (a) Establishment of General Attempt Offense.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 19 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in the chapter heading, by striking ``Conspiracy'' and 
     inserting ``Inchoate offenses''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 374. Attempt to commit offense

       ``(a) In General.--Whoever, acting with the state of mind 
     otherwise required for the commission of an offense described 
     in this title, intentionally engages in conduct that, in 
     fact, constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of 
     the offense, is guilty of an attempt and is subject to the 
     same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the 
     commission of which was the object of the attempt, except 
     that the penalty of death shall not be imposed.
       ``(b) Inability To Commit Offense; Completion of Offense.--
     It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section--
       ``(1) that it was factually impossible for the actor to 
     commit the offense, if the offense could have been committed 
     had the circumstances been as the actor believed them to be; 
     or
       ``(2) that the offense attempted was completed.
       ``(c) Exceptions.--This section does not apply--
       ``(1) to an offense consisting of conspiracy, attempt, 
     endeavor, or solicitation;
       ``(2) to an offense consisting of an omission, refusal, 
     failure of refraining to act;
       ``(3) to an offense involving negligent conduct; or
       ``(4) to an offense described in section 1118, 1120, 1121, 
     or 1153 of this title.
       ``(d) Affirmative Defense.--

[[Page 688]]

       ``(1) In general.--It is an affirmative defense to a 
     prosecution under this section, on which the defendant bears 
     the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence, 
     that, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and 
     complete renunciation of criminal intent, the defendant 
     prevented the commission of the offense.
       ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, a 
     renunciation is not `voluntary and complete' if it is 
     motivated in whole or in part by circumstances that increase 
     the probability of detection or apprehension or that make it 
     more difficult to accomplish the offense, or by a decision to 
     postpone the offense until a more advantageous time or to 
     transfer the criminal effort to a similar objective or 
     victim.''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 19 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``374. Attempt to commit offense.''.
       (b) Rationalization of Conspiracy Penalty and Creation of 
     Renunciation Defense.--Section 371 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the second undesignated paragraph; and
       (2) in the first undesignated paragraph--
       (A) by striking ``If two or more'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) In General.--If 2 or more''; and
       (B) by striking ``either to commit any offense against the 
     United States, or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Conspiracy.--If 2 or more persons conspire to commit 
     any offense against the United States, and 1 or more of such 
     persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, 
     each shall be subject to the same penalties as those 
     prescribed for the most serious offense, the commission of 
     which was the object of the conspiracy, except that the 
     penalty of death shall not be imposed.''.

     SEC. 2003. DRUG OFFENSES COMMITTED IN THE PRESENCE OF 
                   CHILDREN.

       (a) In General.--For the purposes of this Act, an offense 
     is committed in the presence of a child if--
       (1) it takes place in the line of sight of an individual 
     who has not attained the age of 18 years; or
       (2) an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years 
     habitually resides in the place where the violation occurs.
       (b) Guidelines.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the United States Sentencing 
     Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to 
     provide, with respect to an offense under part D of the 
     Controlled Substances Act is committed in the presence of a 
     child--
       (1) a sentencing enhancement of not less than 2 offense 
     levels above the base offense level for the underlying 
     offense or 1 additional year, whichever is greater; and
       (2) in the case of a second or subsequent such offense, a 
     sentencing enhancement of not less than 4 offense levels 
     above the base offense level for the underlying offense, or 2 
     additional years, whichever is greater.

     SEC. 2004. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON BORDER DEFENSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Southwest Border of the United States is a major 
     crossing point for more than 60 percent of the cocaine 
     entering the United States from Latin America;
       (2) drug traffickers are increasingly using violence to 
     threaten local residents, to endanger lives, and destroy 
     property;
       (3) drug traffickers are creating a law enforcement no-
     man's land to facilitate drug trafficking on the Mexican side 
     of the common border and using extortionate methods, illegal 
     riches, and intimidation to acquire property on the United 
     States side of the border; and
       (4) United States law enforcement efforts have been 
     insufficient to protect lives and property or to prevent the 
     use of illegally obtained riches to acquire property.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the President, in cooperation with the Government of 
     Mexico, should take immediate and effective action at and 
     near the United States border with Mexico to control violence 
     and other illegal acts directed at the respective residents 
     of both countries; and
       (2) the Attorney General should submit to the Committees on 
     the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     a report on--
       (A) what steps are being taken to ensure the safety of 
     United States citizens at and near the United States border 
     with Mexico;
       (B) what steps are being taken to prevent the illegal 
     acquisition of sites and facilities at or near the border by 
     drug traffickers; and
       (C) what further steps need to be taken to ensure the 
     safety and well being of the people of the United States 
     along the United States border with Mexico.

     SEC. 2005. CLONE PAGERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2511(2)(h) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking clause (i) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(i) to use a pen register, a trap and trace device, or a 
     clone pager, as those terms are defined in chapter 206 
     (relating to pen registers, trap and trace devices, and clone 
     pagers) of this title; or'';
       (b) Exception.--Section 3121 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in this section, no 
     person may install or use a pen register, trap and trace 
     device, or clone pager without first obtaining a court order 
     under section 3123 or section 3129 of this title, or under 
     the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1801 et seq.).'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``a pen register or a 
     trap and trace device'' and inserting ``a pen register, trap 
     and trace device, or clone pager''; and
       (3) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 3121. General prohibition on pen register, trap and 
       trace device, and clone pager use; exception''.

       (c) Assistance.--Section 3124 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as 
     subsections (d) through (g), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Clone Pager.--Upon the request of an attorney for the 
     Government or an officer of a law enforcement agency 
     authorized to use a clone pager under this chapter, a 
     provider of electronic communication service shall furnish to 
     such investigative or law enforcement officer all 
     information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary 
     to accomplish the use of the clone pager unobtrusively and 
     with a minimum of interference with the services that the 
     person so ordered by the court provides to the subscriber, if 
     such assistance is directed by a court order, as provided in 
     section 3129(b)(2) of this title.''; and
       (3) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 3124. Assistance in installation and use of a pen 
       register, trap and trace device, or clone pager''.

       (d) Emergency Installations.--Section 3125 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``pen register or a trap and trace device'' 
     and ``pen register or trap and trace device'' each place 
     those terms appear, and inserting ``pen register, trap and 
     trace device, or clone pager'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``an order approving the 
     installation or use is issued in accordance with section 3123 
     of this title'' and inserting ``an application is made for an 
     order approving the installation or use in accordance with 
     section 3122 or section 3128 of this title'';
       (3) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``In the event that such application for the use of a clone 
     pager is denied, or in any other case in which the use of the 
     clone pager is terminated without an order having been 
     issued, an inventory shall be served as provided for in 
     section 3129(e).''; and
       (4) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 3125. Emergency pen register, trap and trace device, 
       and clone pager installation and use''.

       (e) Reports.--Section 3126 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``pen register orders and orders for trap 
     and trace devices'' and inserting ``orders for pen registers, 
     trap and trace devices, and clone pagers''; and
       (2) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 3126. Reports concerning pen registers, trap and trace 
       devices, and clone pagers''.

       (f) Definitions.--Section 3127 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) with respect to an application for the use of a pen 
     register or trap and trace device, a court of general 
     criminal jurisdiction of a State authorized by the law of 
     that State to enter orders authorizing the use of a pen 
     register or a trap and trace device; or
       ``(C) with respect to an application for the use of a clone 
     pager, a court of general criminal jurisdiction of a State 
     authorized by the law of that State to issue orders 
     authorizing the use of a clone pager;'';
       (2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (3) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) the term `clone pager' means a numeric display device 
     that receives communications intended for another numeric 
     display paging device.''.
       (g) Applications.--Chapter 206 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 3128. Application for an order for use of a clone 
       pager

       ``(a) Application.--
       ``(1) Federal representatives.--Any attorney for the 
     Government may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for 
     an order or an extension of an order under section 3129 of 
     this title authorizing the use of a clone pager.
       ``(2) State representatives.--A State investigative or law 
     enforcement officer may, if authorized by a State statute, 
     apply to a

[[Page 689]]

     court of competent jurisdiction of such State for an order or 
     an extension of an order under section 3129 of this title 
     authorizing the use of a clone pager.
       ``(b) Contents of Application.--An application under 
     subsection (a) of this section shall include--
       ``(1) the identity of the attorney for the Government or 
     the State law enforcement or investigative officer making the 
     application and the identity of the law enforcement agency 
     conducting the investigation;
       ``(2) the identity, if known, of the individual or 
     individuals using the numeric display paging device to be 
     cloned;
       ``(3) a description of the numeric display paging device to 
     be cloned;
       ``(4) a description of the offense to which the information 
     likely to be obtained by the clone pager relates;
       ``(5) the identity, if known, of the person who is subject 
     of the criminal investigation; and
       ``(6) an affidavit or affidavits, sworn to before the court 
     of competent jurisdiction, establishing probable cause to 
     believe that information relevant to an ongoing criminal 
     investigation being conducted by that agency will be obtained 
     through use of the clone pager.

     ``Sec. 3129. Issuance of an order for use of a clone pager

       ``(a) In General.--Upon an application made under section 
     3128 of this title, the court shall enter an ex parte order 
     authorizing the use of a clone pager within the jurisdiction 
     of the court if the court finds that the application has 
     established probable cause to believe that information 
     relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation being conducted 
     by that agency will be obtained through use of the clone 
     pager.
       ``(b) Contents of an Order.--An order issued under this 
     section--
       ``(1) shall specify--
       ``(A) the identity, if known, of the individual or 
     individuals using the numeric display paging device to be 
     cloned;
       ``(B) the numeric display paging device to be cloned;
       ``(C) the identity, if known, of the subscriber to the 
     pager service; and
       ``(D) the offense to which the information likely to be 
     obtained by the clone pager relates; and
       ``(2) shall direct, upon the request of the applicant, the 
     furnishing of information, facilities, and technical 
     assistance necessary to use the clone pager under section 
     3124 of this title.
       ``(c) Time period and extensions.--
       ``(1) In general.--An order issued under this section shall 
     authorize the use of a clone pager for a period not to exceed 
     30 days. Such 30-day period shall begin on the earlier of the 
     day on which the investigative or law enforcement officer 
     first begins use of the clone pager under the order or the 
     tenth day after the order is entered.
       ``(2) Extensions.--Extensions of an order issued under this 
     section may be granted, but only upon an application for an 
     order under section 3128 of this title and upon the judicial 
     finding required by subsection (a). An extension under this 
     paragraph shall be for a period not to exceed 30 days.
       ``(3) Report.--Within a reasonable time after the 
     termination of the period of a clone pager order or any 
     extensions thereof under this subsection, the applicant shall 
     report to the issuing court the number of numeric pager 
     messages acquired through the use of the clone pager during 
     such period.
       ``(d) Nondisclosure of existence of clone pager.--An order 
     authorizing the use of a clone pager shall direct that--
       ``(1) the order shall be sealed until otherwise ordered by 
     the court; and
       ``(2) the person who has been ordered by the court to 
     provide assistance to the applicant may not disclose the 
     existence of the clone pager or the existence of the 
     investigation to the listed subscriber, or to any other 
     person, until otherwise ordered by the court.
       ``(e) Notification.--Within a reasonable time, not later 
     than 90 days after the date of termination of the period of a 
     clone pager order or any extensions thereof, the issuing 
     judge shall cause to be served, on the individual or 
     individuals using the numeric display paging device that was 
     cloned, an inventory including notice of--
       ``(1) the fact of the entry of the order or the 
     application;
       ``(2) the date of the entry and the period of clone pager 
     use authorized, or the denial of the application; and
       ``(3) whether or not information was obtained through the 
     use of the clone pager. Upon an ex-parte showing of good 
     cause, a court of competent jurisdiction may in its 
     discretion postpone the serving of the notice required by 
     this section.''.
       (h) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections for chapter 
     206 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to section 3121 and 
     inserting the following:

``3121. General prohibition on pen register, trap and trace device, and 
              clone pager use; exception.'';

       (2) by striking the items relating to sections 3124, 3125, 
     and 3126 and inserting the following:

``3124. Assistance in installation and use of a pen register, trap and 
              trace device, or clone pager.
``3125. Emergency pen register, trap and trace device, and clone pager 
              installation and use.
``3126. Reports concerning pen registers, trap and trace devices, and 
              clone pagers.''; and

       (3) by adding at the end the following:

``3128. Application for an order for use of a clone pager.
``3129. Issuance of an order for use of a clone pager''.

       (i) Conforming Amendment.--Section 605(a) of title 47, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``chapter 119'' 
     and inserting ``chapters 119 and 206''.
             Subtitle B--Methamphetamine Laboratory Cleanup

     SEC. 2101. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING METHAMPHETAMINE 
                   LABORATORY CLEANUP.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) methamphetamine use is increasing;
       (2) the production of methamphetamine is increasingly 
     taking place in laboratories located in rural and urban 
     areas;
       (3) this production involves dangerous and explosive 
     chemicals that are dumped in an unsafe manner; and
       (4) the cost of cleaning up these productionsites involves 
     major financial burdens on State and local law enforcement 
     agencies.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration should develop a comprehensive plan for 
     addressing the need for the speedy and safe clean up of 
     methamphetamine laboratory sites; and
       (2) the Federal Government should allocate sufficient 
     funding to pay for a comprehensive effort to clean up 
     methamphetamine laboratory sites.
        Subtitle C--Powder Cocaine Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

     SEC. 2201. SENTENCING FOR VIOLATIONS INVOLVING COCAINE 
                   POWDER.

       (a) Amendment of Controlled Substances Act.--
       (1) Large quantities.--Section 401(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(ii)) is 
     amended by striking ``5 kilograms'' and inserting ``500 
     grams''.
       (2) Small quantities.--Section 401(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is 
     amended by striking ``500 grams'' and inserting ``50 grams''.
       (b) Amendment of Controlled Substances Import and Export 
     Act.--
       (1) Large quantities.--Section 1010(b)(1)(B) of the 
     Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 
     960(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``5 kilograms'' and 
     inserting ``500 grams''.
       (2) Small quantities.--Section 1010(b)(2)(B) of the 
     Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 
     960(b)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``500 grams'' and 
     inserting ``50 grams''.
       (c) Amendment of Sentencing Guidelines.--Pursuant to 
     section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United 
     States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal 
     sentencing guidelines to reflect the amendments made by this 
     section.
                     Subtitle D--Drug-Free Borders

     SEC. 2301. INCREASED PENALTY FOR FALSE STATEMENT OFFENSE.

       Section 542 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``two years'' and inserting ``5 years''.

     SEC. 2302. INCREASED NUMBER OF BORDER PATROL AGENTS.

       Section 101(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 
     Stat. 3009-553) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Increased Number of Border Patrol Agents.--The 
     Attorney General in each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 
     2003, and 2004 shall increase by not less than 1,500 the 
     number of positions for full-time, active-duty border patrol 
     agents within the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     above the number of such positions for which funds were 
     allotted for the preceding fiscal year, to achieve a level of 
     15,000 positions by fiscal year 2004.''.

     SEC. 2303. ENHANCED BORDER PATROL PURSUIT POLICY.

       A border patrol agent of the United States Border Patrol 
     may not cease pursuit of an alien who the agent suspects has 
     unlawfully entered the United States, or an individual who 
     the agent suspects has unlawfully imported a narcotic into 
     the United States, until State or local law enforcement 
     authorities are in pursuit of the alien or individual and 
     have the alien or individual in their visual range.
                      TITLE III--DEMAND REDUCTION
            Subtitle A--Education, Prevention, and Treatment

     SEC. 3001. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON REAUTHORIZATION OF SAFE AND 
                   DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES ACT OF 1994.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) drug and alcohol use continue to plague the Nation's 
     youth;

[[Page 690]]

       (2) approximately 5.6 percent of high school seniors 
     currently smoke marijuana daily;
       (3) the American public has identified drugs as the most 
     serious problem facing its children today;
       (4) delinquent behavior is clearly linked to the frequency 
     of marijuana use; and
       (5) 89 percent of students in grades 6 through 12 say their 
     teachers have taught them about the dangers of drugs and 
     alcohol.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     Congress and the President should make the reauthorization of 
     the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994 a 
     high priority for the 106th Congress, and that such 
     reauthorization should maintain substance abuse prevention as 
     a major focus of the program.

     SEC. 3002. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING REAUTHORIZATION OF 
                   PREVENTION AND TREATMENT PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) 34.8 percent of Americans 12 years of age and older 
     have used an illegal drug in their lifetime and 90 percent of 
     these individuals have used marijuana or hashish and 
     approximately 30 percent have tried cocaine;
       (2) the number of teenagers using drugs has increased 
     significantly over the past 5 years;
       (3) drug abuse is a health issue being faced in every 
     community, town, State and region of this country;
       (4) no one is immune from drug abuse, and such abuse 
     threatens Americans of every socioeconomic background, every 
     educational level, and every race and ethnic origin;
       (5) in 1990 the United States spent $67,000,000,000 on 
     drug-related disorders including health costs, the costs of 
     crime, the costs of accidents and other damages to 
     individuals and property, and the costs of the loss of 
     productivity and premature death;
       (6) comprehensive prevention activities can help youth in 
     saying no to drugs;
       (7) there are over 6,000 community coalitions throughout 
     the Nation helping the youth of America chose a healthy life 
     style;
       (8) individuals with addictive disorders should be held 
     accountable for their actions and should be offered treatment 
     to help change destructive behavior;
       (9) a balanced approach to dealing with drug abuse is 
     needed in the United States between reducing the demand for 
     drugs and the supply of those drugs and a comprehensive plan 
     for addressing drug abuse will involve prevention, education 
     and treatment as well as law enforcement and interdiction; 
     and
       (10) the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
     Administration is the lead Federal agency for substance abuse 
     prevention and treatment initiatives.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     Congress and the President should--
       (1) make the reauthorization of Federal substance abuse 
     prevention and treatment programs a high priority for the 
     106th Congress; and
       (2) provide more flexibility to States in the use of 
     Federal funds for provision of drug abuse prevention and 
     treatment services while holding States accountable for their 
     performance.

     SEC. 3003. REPORT ON DRUG-TESTING TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) Requirement.--The National Institute on Standards and 
     Technology shall conduct a study of drug-testing technologies 
     in order to identify and assess the efficacy, accuracy, and 
     usefulness for purposes of the National effort to detect the 
     use of illicit drugs of any drug-testing technologies 
     (including the testing of hair) that may be used as 
     alternatives or complements to urinalysis as a means of 
     detecting the use of such drugs.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Institute shall submit to Congress 
     a report on the results of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 3004. USE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH SUBSTANCE 
                   ABUSE RESEARCH.

       (a) National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.--
     Section 464H of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     285n) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Requirement to Ensure That Research Aids 
     Practitioners.--The Director, in conjunction with the 
     Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the 
     Director of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, shall--
       ``(1) ensure that the results of all current alcohol 
     research that is set aside for services (and other 
     appropriate research with practical consequences) is widely 
     disseminated to treatment practitioners in an easily 
     understandable format;
       ``(2) ensure that such research results are disseminated in 
     a manner that provides easily understandable steps for the 
     implementation of best practices based on the research; and
       ``(3) make technical assistance available to the Center for 
     Substance Abuse Treatment to assist alcohol and drug 
     treatment practitioners to make permanent changes in 
     treatment activities through the use of successful treatment 
     models.''.
       (b) National Institute on Drug Abuse.--Section 464L of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285o) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Requirement to Ensure That Research Aids 
     Practitioners.--The Director, in conjunction with the 
     Director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
     Alcoholism and the Director of the Center for Substance Abuse 
     Treatment, shall--
       ``(1) ensure that the results of all current drug abuse 
     research that is set aside for services (and other 
     appropriate research with practical consequences) is widely 
     disseminated to treatment practitioners in an easily 
     understandable format;
       ``(2) ensure that such research results are disseminated in 
     a manner that provides easily understandable steps for the 
     implementation of best practices based on the research; and
       ``(3) make technical assistance available to the Center for 
     Substance Abuse Treatment to assist alcohol and drug 
     treatment practitioners to make permanent changes in 
     treatment activities through the use of successful treatment 
     models.''.

     SEC. 3005. NEEDLE EXCHANGE.

       (a) Prohibition Regarding Illegal Drugs and Distribution of 
     Hypodermic Needles.--Part B of title II of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 238 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following section:


 ``prohibition regarding illegal drugs and distribution of hypodermic 
                                needles

       ``Sec. 247. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     none of the amounts made available under any Federal law for 
     any fiscal year may be expended, directly or indirectly, to 
     carry out any program of distributing sterile needles or 
     syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 506 of Public Law 105-78 
     is repealed.

     SEC. 3006. DRUG-FREE TEEN DRIVERS INCENTIVE.

       (a) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     establish an incentive grant program for States to assist the 
     States in improving their laws relating to controlled 
     substances and driving.
       (b) Grant requirements.--To qualify for a grant under 
     subsection (a), a State shall carry out the following:
       (1) Enact, actively enforce, and publicize a law that makes 
     it illegal to drive in the State with any measurable amount 
     of an illegal controlled substance in the driver's body. An 
     illegal controlled substance is a controlled substance for 
     which an individual does not have a legal written 
     prescription. An individual who is convicted of such illegal 
     driving shall be referred to appropriate services, including 
     intervention, counselling, and treatment.
       (2) Enact, actively enforce, and publicize a law that makes 
     it illegal to drive in the State when driving is impaired by 
     the presence of any drug. The State shall provide that in the 
     enforcement of such law, a driver shall be tested for the 
     presence of a drug when there is evidence of impaired driving 
     and a driver will have the driver's license suspended. An 
     individual who is convicted of such illegal driving shall be 
     referred to appropriate services, including intervention, 
     counselling, and treatment.
       (3) Enact, actively enforce, and publicize a law that 
     authorizes the suspension of a driver's license if the driver 
     is convicted of any criminal offense relating to drugs.
       (4) Enact a law that provides that beginning driver 
     applicants and other individuals applying for or renewing a 
     driver's license will be provided information about the laws 
     referred to in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and will be 
     required to answer drug-related questions on their 
     applications.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 3007. DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the continued presence in schools of violent students 
     who are a threat to both teachers and other students is 
     incompatible with a safe learning environment;
       (2) unsafe school environments place students who are 
     already at risk of school failure for other reasons in 
     further jeopardy;
       (3) recently, over one-fourth of high school students 
     surveyed reported being threatened at school;
       (4) 2,000,000 more children are using drugs in 1997 than 
     were doing so a few short years prior to 1997;
       (5) more of our children are becoming involved with hard 
     drugs at earlier ages, as use of heroin and cocaine by 8th 
     graders has more than doubled since 1991; and
       (6) greater cooperation between schools, parents, law 
     enforcement, the courts, and the community is essential to 
     making our schools safe from drugs and violence.

     SEC. 3008. VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS FOR 
                   TEACHERS AND STUDENTS.

       (a) Victim Compensation.--Section 1403 of the Victims of 
     Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10602) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(f) Victims of School Violence.--

[[Page 691]]

       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, an eligible crime victim compensation program may expend 
     funds appropriated under paragraph (2) to offer compensation 
     to elementary and secondary school students or teachers who 
     are victims of elementary and secondary school violence (as 
     school violence is defined under applicable State law).
       ``(2) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Victim and Witness Assistance.--Section 1404(c) of the 
     Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603(c)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Assistance for victims of and witnesses to school 
     violence.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Director may make a grant under this section for a 
     demonstration project or for training and technical 
     assistance services to a program that--
       ``(A) assists State educational agencies and local 
     educational agencies (as the terms are defined in section 
     14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 8801)) in developing, establishing, and operating 
     programs that are designed to protect victims of and 
     witnesses to incidents of elementary and secondary school 
     violence (as school violence is defined under applicable 
     State law), including programs designed to protect witnesses 
     testifying in school disciplinary proceedings; or
       ``(B) supports a student safety toll-free hotline that 
     provides students and teachers in elementary and secondary 
     schools with confidential assistance relating to the issues 
     of school crime, violence, drug dealing, and threats to 
     personal safety.''.

     SEC. 3009. INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS TO PROTECT TEACHERS AND 
                   STUDENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Elementary school, local educational agency, secondary 
     school, and state educational agency.--The terms ``elementary 
     school'', ``local educational agency'', ``secondary school'', 
     and ``State educational agency'' have the meanings given the 
     terms in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (b) Authorization For Report Cards on Schools.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to award 
     grants to States, State educational agencies, and local 
     educational agencies to develop, establish, or conduct 
     innovative programs to improve unsafe elementary schools or 
     secondary schools.
       (2) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority to 
     awarding grants under paragraph (1) to--
       (A) programs that provide parent and teacher notification 
     about incidents of physical violence, weapon possession, or 
     drug activity on school grounds as soon after the incident as 
     practicable;
       (B) programs that provide to parents and teachers an annual 
     report regarding--
       (i) the total number of incidents of physical violence, 
     weapon possession, and drug activity on school grounds;
       (ii) the percentage of students missing 10 or fewer days of 
     school; and
       (iii) a comparison, if available, to previous annual 
     reports under this paragraph, which comparison shall not 
     involve a comparison of more than 5 such previous annual 
     reports; and
       (C) programs to enhance school security measures that may 
     include--
       (i) equipping schools with fences, closed circuit cameras, 
     and other physical security measures;
       (ii) providing increased police patrols in and around 
     elementary schools and secondary schools, including canine 
     patrols; and
       (iii) mailings to parents at the beginning of the school 
     year stating that the possession of a gun or other weapon, or 
     the sale of drugs in school, will not be tolerated by school 
     authorities.
       (c) Application.--
       (1) In general.--Each State, State educational agency, or 
     local educational agency desiring a grant under this 
     subchapter shall submit an application to the Secretary at 
     such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       (2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall contain an assurance that the State or agency has 
     implemented or will implement policies that--
       (A) provide protections for victims and witnesses to school 
     crime, including protections for attendance at school 
     disciplinary proceedings;
       (B) expel students who, on school grounds, sell drugs, or 
     who commit a violent offense that causes serious bodily 
     injury of another student or teacher; and
       (C) require referral to law enforcement authorities or 
     juvenile authorities of any student who on school grounds--
       (i) commits a violent offense resulting in serious bodily 
     injury; or
       (ii) sells drugs.
       (3) Special rule.--For purposes of subparagraphs (B) and 
     (C) of paragraph (2), State law shall determine what 
     constitutes a violent offense or serious bodily injury.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.
       (e) Innovative Voluntary Random Drug Testing Programs.--
     Section 4116(b) of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
     Communities Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 7116(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (9), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (11); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) innovative voluntary random drug testing programs; 
     and''.
                     Subtitle B--Drug-Free Families

     SEC. 3101. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Drug-Free Families Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 3102. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that in 
     1962, less than one percent of the Nation's adolescents had 
     ever tried an illicit drug. By 1979, drug use among young 
     people had escalated to the highest levels in history: 34 
     percent of adolescents (ages 12-17), 65 percent of high 
     school seniors (age 18), and 70 percent of young adults (ages 
     18-25) had used an illicit drug in their lifetime.
       (2) Drug use among young people was not confined to initial 
     trials. By 1979, 16 percent of adolescents, 39 percent of 
     high school seniors, and 38 percent of young adults had used 
     an illicit drug in the past month. Moreover, one in nine high 
     school seniors used marijuana daily.
       (3) In 1979, the year the largest number of seniors used 
     marijuana, their belief that marijuana could hurt them was at 
     its lowest (35 percent) since surveys have tracked these 
     measures.
       (4) Three forces appeared to be driving this escalation in 
     drug use among children and young adults. Between 1972 and 
     1978, a nationwide political campaign conducted by drug 
     legalization advocates persuaded eleven state legislatures to 
     ``decriminalize'' marijuana. (Many of those states have 
     subsequently ``recriminalized'' the drug.) Such legislative 
     action reinforced advocates' assertion that marijuana was 
     ``relatively harmless.''
       (5) The decriminalization effort gave rise to the emergence 
     of ``head shops'' (shops for ``heads,'' or drug users--``coke 
     heads,'' ``pot heads,'' ``acid heads,'' etc.) which sold drug 
     paraphernalia--an array of toys, implements, and 
     instructional pamphlets and booklets to enhance the use of 
     illicit drugs. Some 30,000 such shops were estimated to be 
     doing business throughout the Nation by 1978.
       (6) In the absence of Federal funding for drug education 
     then, most of the drug education materials that were 
     available proclaimed that few illicit drugs were addictive 
     and most were ``less harmful'' than alcohol and tobacco and 
     therefore taught young people how to use marijuana, cocaine, 
     and other illicit drugs ``responsibly''.
       (7) Between 1977 and 1980, three national parent drug-
     prevention organizations--National Families in Action, PRIDE, 
     and the National Federation of Parents for Drug-Free Youth 
     (now called the National Family Partnership)--emerged to help 
     concerned parents form some 4,000 local parent prevention 
     groups across the Nation to reverse all of these trends in 
     order to prevent children from using drugs. Their work 
     created what has come to be known as the parents drug-
     prevention movement, or more simply, the parent movement. 
     This movement set three goals: to prevent the use of any 
     illegal drug, to persuade those who had started using drugs 
     to stop, and to obtain treatment for those who had become 
     addicted so that they could return to drug-free lives.
       (8) The parent movement pursued a number of objectives to 
     achieve these goals. First, it helped parents educate 
     themselves about the harmful effects of drugs, teach that 
     information to their children, communicate that they expected 
     their children not to use drugs, and establish consequences 
     if children failed to meet that expectation. Second, it 
     helped parents form groups with other parents to set common 
     age-appropriate social and behavioral guidelines to protect 
     their children from exposure to drugs. Third, it encouraged 
     parents to insist that their communities reinforce parents' 
     commitment to protect children from drug use.
       (9) The parent movement stopped further efforts to 
     decriminalize marijuana, both in the states and at the 
     Federal level.
       (10) The parent movement worked for laws to ban the sale of 
     drug paraphernalia. If drugs were illegal, it made no sense 
     to condone the sale of toys and implements to enhance the use 
     of illegal drugs, particularly when those products targeted 
     children. As towns, cities, counties, and states passed anti-
     paraphernalia laws, drug legalization organizations 
     challenged their Constitutionality in Federal courts until 
     the early 1980's, when the United States Supreme Court upheld 
     Nebraska's law and established the right of communities to 
     ban the sale of drug paraphernalia.
       (11) The parent movement insisted that drug-education 
     materials convey a strong no-use message in compliance with 
     both the

[[Page 692]]

     law and with medical and scientific information that 
     demonstrates that drugs are harmful, particularly to young 
     people.
       (12) The parent movement encouraged others in society to 
     join the drug prevention effort and many did, from First Lady 
     Nancy Reagan to the entertainment industry, the business 
     community, the media, the medical community, the educational 
     community, the criminal justice community, the faith 
     community, and local, State, and national political leaders.
       (13) The parent movement helped to cause drug use among 
     young people to peak in 1979. As its efforts continued 
     throughout the next decade, and as others joined parents to 
     expand the drug-prevention movement, between 1979 and 1992 
     these collaborative prevention efforts contributed to 
     reducing monthly illicit drug use by two-thirds among 
     adolescents and young adults and reduced daily marijuana use 
     among high-school seniors from 10.7 percent to 1.9 percent. 
     Concurrently, both the parent movement and the larger 
     prevention movement that evolved throughout the 1980's, 
     working together, increased high school seniors' belief that 
     marijuana could hurt them, from 35 percent in 1979 to 79 
     percent in 1991.
       (14) Unfortunately, as drug use declined, most of the 4,000 
     volunteer parents groups that contributed to the reduction in 
     drug use disbanded, having accomplished the job they set out 
     to do. But the absence of active parent groups left a vacuum 
     that was soon filled by a revitalized drug-legalization 
     movement. Proponents began advocating for the legalization of 
     marijuana for medicine, the legalization of all Schedule I 
     drugs for medicine, the legalization of hemp for medicinal, 
     industrial and recreational use, and a variety of other 
     proposals, all designed to ultimately attack, weaken, and 
     eventually repeal the Nation's drug laws.
       (15) Furthermore, legalization proponents are also 
     beginning to advocate for treatment that maintains addicts on 
     the drugs to which they are addicted (heroin maintenance for 
     heroin addicts, controlled drinking for alcoholics, etc.), 
     for teaching school children to use drugs ``responsibly,'' 
     and for other measures similar to those that produced the 
     drug epidemic among young people in the 1970's.
       (16) During the 1990's, the message embodied in all of this 
     activity has once again driven down young people's belief 
     that drugs can hurt them. As a result, the reductions in drug 
     use that occurred over 13 years reversed in 1992, and 
     adolescent drug use has more than doubled.
       (17) Today's parents are almost universally in the 
     workplace and do not have time to volunteer. Many families 
     are headed by single parents. In some families no parents are 
     available, and grandparents, aunts, uncles, or foster parents 
     are raising the family's children.
       (18) Recognizing that these challenges make it much more 
     difficult to reach parents today, several national parent and 
     family drug-prevention organizations have formed the Parent 
     Collaboration to address these issues in order to build a new 
     parent and family movement to prevent drug use among 
     children.
       (19) Motivating parents and parent groups to coordinate 
     with local community anti- drug coalitions is a key goal of 
     the Parent Collaboration, as well as coordinating parent and 
     family drug-prevention efforts with Federal, State, and local 
     governmental and private agencies and political, business, 
     medical and scientific, educational, criminal justice, 
     religious, and media and entertainment industry leaders.

     SEC. 3103. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this subtitle are to--
       (1) build a movement to help parents and families prevent 
     drug use among their children and adolescents;
       (2) help parents and families reduce drug abuse and drug 
     addiction among adolescents who are already using drugs, and 
     return them to drug-free lives;
       (3) increase young people's perception that drugs are 
     harmful to their health, well-being, and ability to function 
     successfully in life;
       (4) help parents and families educate society that the best 
     way to protect children from drug use and all of its related 
     problems is to convey a clear, consistent, no-use message;
       (5) strengthen coordination, cooperation, and collaboration 
     between parents and families and all others who are 
     interested in protecting children from drug use and all of 
     its related problems;
       (6) help parents strengthen their families, neighborhoods, 
     and school communities to reduce risk factors and increase 
     protective factors to ensure the healthy growth of children; 
     and
       (7) provide resources in the fiscal year 2000 Federal drug 
     control budget for a grant to the Parent Collaboration to 
     conduct a national campaign to mobilize today's parents and 
     families through the provision of information, training, 
     technical assistance, and other services to help parents and 
     families prevent drug use among their children and to build a 
     new parent and family drug-prevention movement.

     SEC. 3104. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) Administrative costs.--The term ``administrative 
     costs'' means to those costs that the assigned Federal agency 
     will incur to administer the grant to the Parent 
     Collaboration.
       (2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
       (3) No-use message.--The term ``no-use message'' means no 
     use of any illegal drug and no illegal use of any legal drug 
     or substance that is sometimes used illegally, such as 
     prescription drugs, inhalants, and alcohol and tobacco for 
     children and adolescents under the legal purchase age.
       (4) Parent collaboration.--The term ``Parent 
     Collaboration'' means the legal entity, which is exempt from 
     income taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, established by National Families in 
     Action, National Asian Pacific American Families Against 
     Substance Abuse, African American Parents for Drug 
     Prevention, National Association for Native American Children 
     of Alcoholics, and the National Hispano/Latino Community 
     Prevention Network and other groups, that--
       (A) have a primary mission of helping parents prevent drug 
     use, drug abuse, and drug addiction among their children, 
     their families, and their communities;
       (B) have carried out this mission for a minimum of 5 
     consecutive years; and
       (C) base their drug-prevention missions on the foundation 
     of a strong, no-use message in compliance with international, 
     Federal, State, and local treaties and laws that prohibit the 
     possession, production, cultivation, distribution, sale, and 
     trafficking in illicit drugs;

     in order to build a new parent and family movement to prevent 
     drug use among children and adolescents

     SEC. 3105. ESTABLISHMENT OF DRUG-FREE FAMILIES SUPPORT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator shall make a grant to 
     the Parent Collaboration to conduct a national campaign to 
     build a new parent and family movement to help parents and 
     families prevent drug abuse among their children.
       (b) Termination.--The period of this grant under this 
     section shall be 5 years.

     SEC. 3106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     to carry out this subtitle $5,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2004 for a grant to the Parent 
     Collaboration to conduct the national campaign to mobilize 
     parents and families.
       (b) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 5 percent of the 
     total amount made available under subsection (a) in each 
     fiscal year may be used to pay administrative costs of the 
     Parent Collaboration.
 TITLE IV--FUNDING FOR UNITED STATES COUNTER-DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

     SEC. 4001. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a)  Drug Enforcement and Other Noncommercial Operations.--
     Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 301(b)(1) of the Customs 
     Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 
     2075(b)(1)(A) and (B)) are amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) $997,300,584 for fiscal year 2000.
       ``(B) $1,100,818,328 for fiscal year 2001.''.
       (b) Commercial Operations.--Clauses (i) and (ii) of section 
     301(b)(2)(A) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(2)(A)(i) and 
     (ii)) are amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) $990,030,000 for fiscal year 2000.
       ``(ii) $1,009,312,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
       (c) Air and Marine Interdiction.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) 
     of section 301(b)(3) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(3)(A) and 
     (B)) are amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) $229,001,000 for fiscal year 2000.
       ``(B) $176,967,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
       (d) Submission of Out-Year Budget Projections.--Section 
     301(a) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2075(a)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(3) Not later than the date on which the President 
     submits to Congress the budget of the United States 
     Government for a fiscal year, the Commissioner of Customs 
     shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate 
     the projected amount of funds for the succeeding fiscal year 
     that will be necessary for the operations of the Customs 
     Service as provided for in subsection (b).''.

     SEC. 4002. CARGO INSPECTION AND NARCOTICS DETECTION 
                   EQUIPMENT.

       (a) Fiscal Year 2000.--Of the amounts made available for 
     fiscal year 2000 under section 301(b)(1)(A) of the Customs 
     Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 
     2075(b)(1)(A)), as amended by section 4001(a) of this title, 
     $100,036,000 shall be available until expended for 
     acquisition and other expenses associated with implementation 
     and deployment of narcotics detection equipment along the 
     United States-Mexico border, the United States-Canada border, 
     and Florida and the Gulf Coast seaports, as follows:
       (1) United states-mexico border.--For the United States-
     Mexico border, the following:
       (A) $6,000,000 for 8 Vehicle and Container Inspection 
     Systems (VACIS).
       (B) $11,000,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with transmission 
     and backscatter imaging.
       (C) $12,000,000 for the upgrade of 8 fixed-site truck x-
     rays from the present energy level of 450,000 electron volts 
     to 1,000,000 electron volts (1-MeV).

[[Page 693]]

       (D) $7,200,000 for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
       (E) $1,000,000 for 200 portable contraband detectors 
     (busters) to be distributed among ports where the current 
     allocations are inadequate.
       (F) $600,000 for 50 contraband detection kits to be 
     distributed among all southwest border ports based on traffic 
     volume.
       (G) $500,000 for 25 ultrasonic container inspection units 
     to be distributed among all ports receiving liquid-filled 
     cargo and to ports with a hazardous material inspection 
     facility.
       (H) $2,450,000 for 7 automated targeting systems.
       (I) $360,000 for 30 rapid tire deflator systems to be 
     distributed to those ports where port runners are a threat.
       (J) $480,000 for 20 portable Treasury Enforcement 
     Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved among 
     ports as needed.
       (K) $1,000,000 for 20 remote watch surveillance camera 
     systems at ports where there are suspicious activities at 
     loading docks, vehicle queues, secondary inspection lanes, or 
     areas where visual surveillance or observation is obscured.
       (L) $1,254,000 for 57 weigh-in-motion sensors to be 
     distributed among the ports with the greatest volume of 
     outbound traffic.
       (M) $180,000 for 36 AM traffic information radio stations, 
     with 1 station to be located at each border crossing.
       (N) $1,040,000 for 260 inbound vehicle counters to be 
     installed at every inbound vehicle lane.
       (O) $950,000 for 38 spotter camera systems to counter the 
     surveillance of customs inspection activities by persons 
     outside the boundaries of ports where such surveillance 
     activities are occurring.
       (P) $390,000 for 60 inbound commercial truck transponders 
     to be distributed to all ports of entry.
       (Q) $1,600,000 for 40 narcotics vapor and particle 
     detectors to be distributed to each border crossing.
       (R) $400,000 for license plate reader automatic targeting 
     software to be installed at each port to target inbound 
     vehicles.
       (S) $1,000,000 for a demonstration site for a high-energy 
     relocatable rail car inspection system with an x-ray source 
     switchable from 2,000,000 electron volts (2-MeV) to 6,000,000 
     electron volts (6-MeV) at a shared Department of Defense 
     testing facility for a two-month testing period.
       (2) United states-canada border.--For the United States-
     Canada border, the following:
       (A) $3,000,000 for 4 Vehicle and Container Inspection 
     Systems (VACIS).
       (B) $8,800,000 for 4 mobile truck x-rays with transmission 
     and backscatter imaging.
       (C) $3,600,000 for 4 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
       (D) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters) 
     to be distributed among ports where the current allocations 
     are inadequate.
       (E) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be 
     distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
       (F) $240,000 for 10 portable Treasury Enforcement 
     Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved among 
     ports as needed.
       (G) $400,000 for 10 narcotics vapor and particle detectors 
     to be distributed to each border crossing based on traffic 
     volume.
       (H) $600,000 for 30 fiber optic scopes.
       (I) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters) 
     to be distributed among ports where the current allocations 
     are inadequate.
       (J) $3,000,000 for 10 x-ray vans with particle detectors.
       (K) $40,000 for 8 AM loop radio systems.
       (L) $400,000 for 100 vehicle counters.
       (M) $1,200,000 for 12 examination tool trucks.
       (N) $2,400,000 for 3 dedicated commuter lanes.
       (O) $1,050,000 for 3 automated targeting systems.
       (P) $572,000 for 26 weigh-in-motion sensors.
       (Q) $480,000 for 20 portable Treasury Enforcement 
     Communication Systems (TECS).
       (3) Florida and gulf coast seaports.--For Florida and the 
     Gulf Coast seaports, the following:
       (A) $4,500,000 for 6 Vehicle and Container Inspection 
     Systems (VACIS).
       (B) $11,800,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with transmission 
     and backscatter imaging.
       (C) $7,200,000 for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
       (D) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters) 
     to be distributed among ports where the current allocations 
     are inadequate.
       (E) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be 
     distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
       (b) Fiscal Year 2001.--Of the amounts made available for 
     fiscal year 2001 under section 301(b)(1)(B) of the Customs 
     Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 
     2075(b)(1)(B)), as amended by section 4001(a) of this title, 
     $9,923,500 shall be for the maintenance and support of the 
     equipment and training of personnel to maintain and support 
     the equipment described in subsection (a).
       (c) Acquisition of Technologically Superior Equipment; 
     Transfer of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The Commissioner of Customs may use 
     amounts made available for fiscal year 2000 under section 
     301(b)(1)(A) of the Customs Procedural Reform and 
     Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)(A)), as 
     amended by section 4001(a) of this title, for the acquisition 
     of equipment other than the equipment described in subsection 
     (a) if such other equipment--
       (A)(i) is technologically superior to the equipment 
     described in subsection (a); and
       (ii) will achieve at least the same results at a cost that 
     is the same or less than the equipment described in 
     subsection (a); or
       (B) can be obtained at a lower cost than the equipment 
     described in subsection (a).
       (2) Transfer of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this section, the Commissioner of Customs may reallocate 
     an amount not to exceed 10 percent of--
       (A) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A) 
     through (R) of subsection (a)(1) for equipment specified in 
     any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (R);
       (B) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A) 
     through (Q) of subsection (a)(2) for equipment specified in 
     any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (Q); and
       (C) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A) 
     through (E) of subsection (a)(3) for equipment specified in 
     any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (E).

     SEC. 4003. PEAK HOURS AND INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT.

       Of the amounts made available for fiscal years 2000 and 
     2001 under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 301(b)(1) of 
     the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 
     (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)(A) and (B)), as amended by section 
     4001(a) of this title, $159,557,000, including $5,673,600, 
     until expended, for investigative equipment, for fiscal year 
     2000 and $220,351,000 for fiscal year 2001 shall be available 
     for the following:
       (1) A net increase of 535 inspectors, 120 special agents, 
     and 10 intelligence analysts for the United States-Mexico 
     border and 375 inspectors for the United States-Canada 
     border, in order to open all primary lanes on such borders 
     during peak hours and enhance investigative resources.
       (2) A net increase of 285 inspectors and canine enforcement 
     officers to be distributed at large cargo facilities as 
     needed to process and screen cargo (including rail cargo) and 
     reduce commercial waiting times on the United States-Mexico 
     border and a net increase of 125 inspectors to be distributed 
     at large cargo facilities as needed to process and screen 
     cargo (including rail cargo) and reduce commercial waiting 
     times on the United States-Canada border.
       (3) A net increase of 40 inspectors at sea ports in 
     southeast Florida to process and screen cargo.
       (4) A net increase of 70 special agent positions, 23 
     intelligence analyst positions, 9 support staff, and the 
     necessary equipment to enhance investigation efforts targeted 
     at internal conspiracies at the Nation's seaports.
       (5) A net increase of 360 special agents, 30 intelligence 
     analysts, and additional resources to be distributed among 
     offices that have jurisdiction over major metropolitan drug 
     or narcotics distribution and transportation centers for 
     intensification of efforts against drug smuggling and money 
     laundering organizations.
       (6) A net increase of 2 special agent positions to re-
     establish a Customs Attache office in Nassau.
       (7) A net increase of 62 special agent positions and 8 
     intelligence analyst positions for maritime smuggling 
     investigations and interdiction operations.
       (8) A net increase of 50 positions and additional resources 
     to the Office of Internal Affairs to enhance investigative 
     resources for anticorruption efforts.
       (9) The costs incurred as a result of the increase in 
     personnel hired pursuant to this section.

     SEC. 4004. AIR AND MARINE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING.

       (a) Fiscal Year 2000.--Of the amounts made available for 
     fiscal year 2000 under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 
     301(b)(3) of the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification 
     Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(3) (A) and (B)) as amended by 
     section 4001(c) of this title, $130,513,000 shall be 
     available until expended for the following:
       (1) $96,500,000 for Customs aircraft restoration and 
     replacement initiative.
       (2) $15,000,000 for increased air interdiction and 
     investigative support activities.
       (3) $19,013,000 for marine vessel replacement and related 
     equipment.
       (b) Fiscal Year 2001.--Of the amounts made available for 
     fiscal year 2001 under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 
     301(b)(3) of the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification 
     Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(3) (A) and (B)) as amended by 
     section 4001(c) of this title, $75,524,000 shall be available 
     until expended for the following:
       (1) $36,500,000 for Customs Service aircraft restoration 
     and replacement.
       (2) $15,000,000 for increased air interdiction and 
     investigative support activities.
       (3) $24,024,000 for marine vessel replacement and related 
     equipment.

     SEC. 4005. COMPLIANCE WITH PERFORMANCE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.

       As part of the annual performance plan for each of the 
     fiscal years 2000 and 2001 covering each program activity set 
     forth in the budget of the United States Customs Service, as

[[Page 694]]

     required under section 1115 of title 31, United States Code, 
     the Commissioner of Customs shall establish performance goals 
     and performance indicators, and comply with all other 
     requirements contained in paragraphs (1) through (6) of 
     subsection (a) of such section with respect to each of the 
     activities to be carried out pursuant to sections 1002 and 
     1003 of this title.

     SEC. 4006. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS SALARY.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking the following item:
       ``Commissioner of Customs, Department of Treasury.''.
       (2) Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting the following item:
       ``Commissioner of Customs, Department of Treasury.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to fiscal year 2000 and thereafter.

     SEC. 4007. PASSENGER PRECLEARANCE SERVICES.

       (a) Continuation of Preclearance Services.--Notwithstanding 
     section 13031(f) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)) or any other 
     provision of law, the Customs Service shall, without regard 
     to whether a passenger processing fee is collected from a 
     person departing for the United States from Canada and 
     without regard to whether funds are appropriated pursuant to 
     subsection (b), provide the same level of enhanced 
     preclearance customs services for passengers arriving in the 
     United States aboard commercial aircraft originating in 
     Canada as the Customs Service provided for such passengers 
     during fiscal year 1997.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations for Preclearance 
     Services.--Notwithstanding section 13031(f) of the 
     Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 
     U.S.C. 58c(f)) or any other provision of law, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated, from the date of enactment of 
     this Act through September 30, 2001, such sums as may be 
     necessary for the Customs Service to ensure that it will 
     continue to provide the same, and where necessary increased, 
     levels of enhanced preclearance customs services as the 
     Customs Service provided during fiscal year 1997, in 
     connection with the arrival in the United States of 
     passengers aboard commercial aircraft whose flights 
     originated in Canada.
                 Subtitle B--United States Coast Guard

     SEC. 4101. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.

       In addition to amounts to be appropriated for the United 
     States Coast Guard for fiscal year 2000, there is authorized 
     to be appropriated $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 
     and 2001 for operation and maintenance.
              Subtitle C--Drug Enforcement Administration

     SEC. 4201. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COUNTERNARCOTICS AND 
                   INFORMATION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.

       In addition to amounts to be appropriated for the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration for fiscal year 2000, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated $120,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2000 for counternarcotics and information support operations.
                 Subtitle D--Department of the Treasury

     SEC. 4301. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COUNTER-DRUG INFORMATION 
                   SUPPORT.

       In addition to the other amounts to be appropriated for the 
     Department of the Treasury for fiscal year 2000, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for counternarcotics, information 
     support, and money laundering efforts.
                   Subtitle E--Department of Defense

     SEC. 4401. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR EXPANSION OF 
                   COUNTERNARCOTICS ACTIVITIES.

       In addition to other amounts to be appropriated for the 
     Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated $200,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2000 and 2001 to be used to expand activities to stop 
     the flow of illegal drugs into the United States.

     SEC. 4402. FORWARD MILITARY BASE FOR COUNTERNARCOTICS 
                   MATTERS.

       (a) The Secretary of the Air Force may acquire real 
     property and carry out military construction projects in the 
     amount of $300,000,000 to establish an air base, or air bases 
     for use for support of counternarcotics operations in the 
     areas of the southern Caribbean Sea, northern South America, 
     and the eastern Pacific Ocean, to be located in Latin America 
     or the area of the Caribbean Sea, or both.
       (b) There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary for fiscal year 2000, and any succeeding fiscal 
     year, for military construction and land acquisition for an 
     airbase referred to subsection (a).

     SEC. 4403. EXPANSION OF RADAR COVERAGE AND OPERATION IN 
                   SOURCE AND TRANSIT COUNTRIES.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for the Department of Defense for fiscal 
     year 2000, $100,000,000 for purposes of the procurement of a 
     Relocatable Over the Horizon Radar (ROTHR) to be located in 
     South America.
       (b) Authorization To Locate.--The Relocatable Over the 
     Horizon Radar procured pursuant to the authorization of 
     appropriations in subsection (a) may be located at a location 
     in South America that is suitable for purposes of providing 
     enhanced radar coverage of narcotics source zone countries in 
     South America.

     SEC. 4404. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FUNDING UNDER WESTERN 
                   HEMISPHERE DRUG ELIMINATION ACT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Teenage drug use in the United States has doubled since 
     1993.
       (2) The drug crisis facing the United States poses a 
     paramount threat to the national security interests of the 
     United States.
       (3) The trans-shipment of illicit drugs through United 
     States borders cannot be halted without an effective drug 
     interdiction strategy.
       (4) The Clinton Administration has placed a low priority on 
     efforts to reduce the supply of illicit drugs, and the 
     seizure of such drugs by the Coast Guard and other Federal 
     agencies has decreased, as is evidenced by a 68 percent 
     decrease in the pounds of cocaine seized by such agencies 
     between 1991 and 1996.
       (5) The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act was enacted 
     into law on October 19, 1998.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the President should allocate funds appropriated for 
     fiscal year 1999 pursuant to the authorizations of 
     appropriations for that fiscal year in the Western Hemisphere 
     Drug Elimination Act in order to carry out fully the purposes 
     of that Act during that fiscal year; and
       (2) the President should include with the budgets for 
     fiscal years 2000 and 2001 that are submitted to Congress 
     under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, a request 
     for funds for such fiscal years in accordance with the 
     authorizations of appropriations for such fiscal years in 
     that Act.

     SEC. 4405. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE PRIORITY OF THE 
                   DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTERDRUG ACTIVITIES OF 
                   THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense 
     should revise the Global Military Force Policy of the 
     Department of Defense in order--
       (1) to treat the international drug interdiction and 
     counterdrug activities of the Department as a military 
     operation other than war, thereby elevating the priority 
     given such activities under the Policy to the next priority 
     below the priority given to war under the Policy and to the 
     same priority given to peacekeeping operations under the 
     Policy; and
       (2) to allocate the assets of the Department to such 
     activities in accordance with the priority given such 
     activities under the revised Policy.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the most recent High School survey of 
teen drug use tells us something. After years of dramatic increases in 
drug use among 12-18 years old, we may have a leveling off. The numbers 
are down, but only barely. At this rate of decline, we will reach the 
modest goals for drug reduction set by the present Administration in 
the year 2050. The Administration seems to find this good news. At 
least, they find the present leveling off something to crow about. 
Frankly, I think these numbers are the occasion for a little more 
modesty and whole lot more work.
  That's what the Congress has been doing. The 105th Congress passed 
major legislation to fight drugs. It put more money and more muscle 
into efforts that the Administration has ignored or downgraded. We did 
this because we saw the consequences--more teen drug use. Today, we 
continue that effort. Our goal is not to claim bragging rights about 
statistically minor changes but to make real changes through serious 
efforts. Today, we introduced the ``Drug Free Century Act.'' This is a 
comprehensive bill that will be one of the main agenda items for the 
106th Congress. It gives us the means to build on what we did last 
Congress. It gives us the beef that the Administration has left out to 
put in the sandwich.
  More important, this bill provides resources to sustain a 
comprehensive effort and a coherent policy. In this bill, we provide 
the means to support our national and international law enforcement 
efforts. We provide the resources to help families and communities get 
and remain drug free. We support treatment and education. In short, we 
build on success and extend our ability to do yet more.
  This bill represents the kind of comprehensive approach that I have 
pushed

[[Page 695]]

for. It gives us the tools to do the job. More important, it provides 
the focus and sustained attention that we need to do the job. We have a 
lot of work ahead of us. It is not going to be easy. But we will be 
better equipped and more able to do the job.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Dodd, 
        Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Reid, Mr. Durbin, 
        Mrs. Murray, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mr. Leahy, Mr. Reed, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Torricelli, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. 
        Levin):
  S. 6. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health 
coverage; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                      the patients' bill of rights

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, we renew the battle in Congress to 
enact a strong Patients' Bill of Rights to protect American families 
from abuses by HMOs and managed care health plans that too often put 
profits over patients' needs.
  Our Patients' Bill of Rights will protect families against the 
arbitrary and self-serving decisions that can rob average citizens of 
their savings and their peace of mind, and often their health and their 
very lives. Doctors and patients should be making medical decisions, 
not insurance company accountants. Too often, managed care is 
mismanaged care. For the millions of Americans who rely on health 
insurance to protect them and their loved ones when serious illness 
strikes, the Patients Bill of Rights is truly a matter of life and 
death.
  The dishonor roll of those victimized by insurance company abuses is 
long and growing.
  A baby loses his hands and feet because his parents believe they have 
to take him to a distant hospital emergency room covered by their HMO, 
rather than to the hospital closest to their home.
  A Senate aide suffers a devastating stroke, which might have been far 
milder if her HMO had not refused to send her to an emergency room. The 
HMO now even refuses to pay for her wheelchair.
  A woman is forced to undergo a mastectomy as an outpatient, instead 
of with a hospital stay as her doctor recommends. She is sent home in 
pain, with tubes still dangling from her body.
  A doctor is punished by being denied future referrals under a managed 
care health plan, because he told a patient about an expensive 
treatment that could save her life.
  The parents of a child suffering from a rare cancer are told that 
life-saving surgery should be performed by an unqualified doctor who 
happens to be on the plan's list, rather than by a specialist at the 
nearby cancer center equipped to perform the operation.
  A patient with a fatal cancer is denied participation in a clinical 
trial that could save her life.
  Our Patients' Bill of Rights addresses all of these problems. It 
takes insurance company accountants out of the practice of medicine and 
returns decision-making to patients and doctors, where it belongs.
  The bottom line is that our program guarantees people the rights that 
every honorable insurance company already grants--and provides an 
effective, timely means to enforce these rights. These protections are 
common-sense components of good health care that every family believes 
they were promised when they purchased health insurance and paid their 
premiums.
  Virtually all of the patients' protections in this legislation are 
already available under Medicare. They have been recommended by the 
National Association of Insurance Commissioners and the President's 
Advisory Commission. They have even been proposed as voluntary 
standards by the managed care industry itself through its trade 
association.
  Our Patients' Bill of Rights is a responsible and effective answer to 
the widespread problems that patients and their families face every 
day. It is supported by a broad and diverse coalition of doctors, 
nurses, patients, and advocates for children, women, and working 
families, including the American Medical Association, the Consortium of 
Citizens with Disabilities, the American Cancer Society, the American 
Heart Association, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the 
National Partnership for Women and Families, the National Association 
of Children's Hospitals, and the AFL-CIO, to name just a few of the 
more than 180 groups endorsing our bill.
  It is rare for such a broad and diverse coalition to come together in 
support of legislation. But they have done so to end these flagrant 
abuses that hurt so many families.
  Every family in this country knows that it will some day have to 
confront the challenge of serious illness for a parent, or a 
grandparent, or a child. When that day comes, all of us want the best 
possible medical care for our loved ones. Members of the Senate deserve 
good medical care for their loved ones--and we generally get it. Every 
other family is equally deserving of high quality care--but too often 
they do not get it because their insurance plan is more interested in 
profits than patients.
  The Patients' Bill of Rights provides simple justice and basic 
protection for each of the 160 million Americans with private insurance 
who will benefit from this legislation. We will continue to fight for 
meaningful patient protections until they are signed into law. We will 
not give up this struggle until every family can be confident that a 
child or parent or grandparent who is ill will receive the best care 
that American medicine can provide.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Biden, Mr. Kennedy, 
        Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. 
        Bingaman):
  S. 9. A bill to combat violent and gang-related crime in schools and 
on the streets, to reform the juvenile justice system, target 
international crime, promote effective drug and other crime prevention 
programs, assist crime victims, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


     the safe schools, safe streets, and secure borders act of 1999

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in September 1998, I introduced, with the 
support of Senator Daschle and several other Democratic Senators, a 
comprehensive crime bill, S. 2484, and am pleased today to join in 
introducing an updated version of that bill, the Safe Schools, Safe 
Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1999. A number of provisions from S. 
2484 were enacted last year and it is my hope that this new bill, S. 9, 
will have similar success.
  The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1999, S. 9, 
is designed to keep our Nation's crime rates moving in the right 
direction--downward. This bill builds on prior Democratic crime 
initiatives, including the landmark Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994, that have reduced violent crime rates by 21 
percent over the past five years. Property crime rates have also fallen 
by more than 20 percent since 1993. The Nation's serious crime rates 
are now at their lowest level since 1973, the first year the national 
crime victimization survey was conducted. We are proud of the 
significant reduction in crime rates, but we must not become 
complacent. Too many Americans still encounter violence in their 
neighborhoods, workplaces, and unfortunately, even in their homes. This 
bill would ensure that the crime rates continue their downward trend 
next year, the year after, and beyond.
  The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act builds on the 
successful programs we implemented in the 1994 Crime Law while also 
addressing emerging crime problems. The bill

[[Page 696]]

is comprehensive and realistic. The new program initiatives are also 
funded without downsizing other Federal programs or touching any 
projected Federal budget surplus, but instead by extending the Violent 
Crime Reduction Trust Fund for two more years.
  I am optimistic that we can enact this bill, without partisan or 
ideological controversy. In fact, the bill contains a number of 
initiatives that enjoy bipartisan support. We have tried to avoid the 
easy rhetoric about crime that some have to offer in this crucial area 
of public policy. Instead, we have crafted a bill that could actually 
make a difference.
  The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act targets 
violent crime in our schools, reforms the juvenile justice system, 
combats gang violence, cracks down on the sale and use of illegal 
drugs, enhances the rights of crime victims, and provides meaningful 
assistance to law enforcement officers in the battle against street 
crime, international crime and terrorism. It also authorizes funding to 
deploy 25,000 additional police officers on the streets in the coming 
years. The Act represents an important next step in the continuing 
effort by Senate Democrats to enact tough yet balanced reforms to our 
criminal justice system.
  The bill has nine comprehensive titles to address crime in our 
schools, crime on our streets, and crime on our borders and abroad. I 
should note that the bill contains no new death penalties and no new or 
increased mandatory minimum sentences. We can be tough without imposing 
the death penalty, and we can ensure swift and certain punishment 
without removing all discretion from the judge at sentencing.
  Title I of the bill deals with proposals for combating violence in 
the schools and punishing juvenile crime. This title provides technical 
assistance to schools, reforms the Federal juvenile system, assists 
States in prosecuting and punishing juvenile offenders and reduces 
juvenile crime, while also protecting children from violence, including 
violence from the misuse of guns.
  Assistance to Schools. Americans were dismayed and grief-stricken at 
the school shootings across the country last year. While homicides at 
American schools have remained relatively constant in recent years, the 
number of students who have experienced a violent crime in school 
increased 23 percent in 1995 compared to 1989. We need to make sure our 
children attend school in a safe environment that fosters learning, not 
fear.
  In response to these concerns, this bill contains an inventive 
proposal developed by Senator Bingaman to establish a School Security 
Technology Center using expertise from the Sandia National Labs, and 
provides grants from the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program to enable 
schools to access technical assistance for school security.
  Federal Prosecution of Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. The 
bill would also make important reforms to the Federal juvenile system, 
without federalizing run-of-the-mill juvenile offenses or ignoring the 
traditional prerogative of the States to handle the bulk of juvenile 
crime. One of the significant flaws in the Republican juvenile crime 
bills last year was that they would have--in the words of Chief Justice 
Rehnquist--``eviscerate[d] this traditional deference to State 
prosecutions, thereby increasing substantially the potential workload 
of the federal judiciary.'' The Chief Justice has repeatedly raised 
concerns about ``federalizing'' more crimes and in his 1998 Year-End 
Report of the Federal Judiciary noted that ``Federal courts were not 
created to adjudicate local crimes, no matter how sensational or 
heinous the crimes may be. State courts do, can, and should handle such 
problems.'' The Democratic proposals for reform of the Federal juvenile 
justice system heed this sound advice and respect our Federal system.
  Among other reforms, the Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure 
Borders Act would allow Federal prosecution of juveniles only when the 
Attorney General certifies that the State cannot or will not exercise 
jurisdiction, or when the juvenile is alleged to have committed a 
violent, drug or firearm offense.
  Prosecutors would be given sole, nonreviewable authority to prosecute 
as adults 16- and 17-year-olds who are alleged to have committed the 
most serious violent and drug offenses. Limited judicial review is 
provided for prosecutors' decisions to try as adults 13-, 
14-, and 15-year-old juveniles, and those 16- and 17-year-olds who are 
charged with less serious Federal offenses.
  Assistance to States for Prosecuting and Punishing Juvenile 
Offenders, and Reducing Juvenile Crime. The bill authorizes grants to 
the States for incarcerating violent and chronic juvenile offenders 
(with each qualifying State getting at least one percent of available 
funds), and provides graduated sanctions, reimburses States for the 
cost of incarcerating juvenile alien offenders, and establishes a pilot 
program to replicate successful juvenile crime reduction strategies.
  Protecting Children from Violence. The bill contains important 
initiatives to protect children from violence, including violence 
resulting from the misuse of guns. Americans want concrete proposals to 
reduce the risk of such incidents recurring. At the same time, we must 
preserve adults' rights to use guns for legitimate purposes, such as 
home protection, hunting and for sport.
  The bill imposes a prospective gun ban for juveniles convicted or 
adjudicated delinquent for violent crimes. It also requires revocation 
of a firearms dealer's license for failing to have secure gun storage 
or safety devices available for sale with firearms. The bill enhances 
the penalty for possessing a firearm during the commission of a crime 
of violence or drug offense and for violation of certain firearm laws 
involving juveniles. In addition, the bill authorizes competitive grant 
programs for the establishment of juvenile gun courts and youth 
violence courts.
  Title II of the bill addresses the problem of gang violence which has 
spread from our cities into rural areas of this country. According to 
the Department of Justice, more than 846,000 gang members belong to 
31,000 youth gangs in the United States, and the numbers are growing.
  This part of the bill cracks down on gangs by making the interstate 
``franchising'' of street gangs a crime. It will also increase 
penalties for crimes during which the convicted felon wears protective 
body armor or uses ``laser-sighting'' devices to commit the crime. The 
bill doubles the criminal penalties for using or threatening physical 
violence against witnesses and contains other provisions designed to 
facilitate the use and protection of witnesses to help prosecute gangs 
and other violent criminals. The Act also provides funding for law 
enforcement agencies in communities designated by the Attorney General 
as areas with a high level of interstate gang activity.
  Title III of the bill sets forth a number of initiatives in nine 
subtitles to combat violence in the streets. The Safe Schools, Safe 
Streets, and Secure Borders Act continues successful initiatives in the 
1994 Crime Act by putting more police officers on our streets, 
providing for the construction of more prisons, preventing juvenile 
felons from buying handguns, and assisting law enforcement and 
community groups in better protecting women and children from domestic 
violence. Specifically, the bill would extend COPS funding into 2001 
and 2002 (which should lead to at least 25,000 more officers on the 
streets); establish a state minimum of .75 percent for Truth-in-
Sentencing grants and extend this program and the Violent Offender 
Incarceration prison grant program into 2001 and 2002; and extend 
authorization for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) funding and 
local law enforcement grant programs.
  A significant problem that arose last year was the loss of 
confidentiality that had previously attached to the important work of 
the U.S. Secret Service. The Departments of Justice and Treasury and 
even a former Republican President advise that the safety of future 
Presidents may be jeopardized by forcing U.S. Secret Service agents to 
breach the confidentiality they need to do their job by testifying 
before a

[[Page 697]]

grand jury. I trust the Secret Service on this issue; they are the 
experts with the mission of protecting the lives of the President and 
other high-level elected official and visiting dignitaries. I also have 
confidence in the judgment of former President Bush, who has written, 
``I feel very strongly that [Secret Service] agents should not be made 
to appear in court to discuss that which they might or might not have 
seen or heard.''
  The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act provides a 
reasonable and limited protective function privilege so future Secret 
Service agents are able to maintain the confidentiality they say they 
need to protect the lives of the President, Vice President and visiting 
heads of state.
  This title of the bill also includes a number of provisions to 
address the following matters:
  Domestic violence: In addition to extending authorized funding for 
the Violence Against Women Act, the bill would punish attempts to 
commit interstate domestic violence, expand the interstate domestic 
violence offense to cover intimidation, and punish interstate travel 
with the intent to kill a spouse.
  Protecting Law Enforcement and the Judiciary: The Act recognizes that 
law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day. 
According to the FBI, over 1,000 officers have been killed in the line 
of duty since 1980. The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders 
Act contains provisions to protect the lives of our law enforcement 
officers by extending the Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant program 
through 2004. It also establishes new crimes and increases penalties 
for killing federal officers and persons working with federal officers, 
including in their work with federal prisoners, and for retaliation 
against federal officials by threatening or injuring their family 
members. The Act enhances the penalty for assaults and threats against 
Federal judges and other federal officials engaged in their official 
duties.
  Cargo/Property Theft: The bill also contains an important initiative 
proposed by Senator Lautenberg to deter cargo thefts.
  Sentencing Improvements: This subtitle doubles the maximum penalty 
for manslaughter from 10 to 20 years, consistent with the Sentencing 
Commission's recommendation, applies the sentencing guidelines to all 
pertinent federal statutes (such as criminal prohibitions in statutes 
outside titles 18 and 21 of the United States Code), and other 
improvements.
  Civil Liberties: The bill includes the ``Hate Crimes Prevention 
Act,'' which was originally introduced by Senator Kennedy and has the 
strong bipartisan support of over twenty Members, and other initiatives 
designed to bolster support for enforcement of civil rights.
  National Drunk Driving Standard: The bill includes a provision 
sponsored by Senator Lautenberg which requires States to establish a 
.08 alcohol standard for driving while intoxicated by 2002 or risk 
losing a portion of their federal highway funds.
  Title IV of the bill outlines a number of prevention programs that 
are critical to further reducing juvenile crime. These programs include 
grants to youth organizations and ``Say No to Drugs'' Community 
Centers, as well as reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth 
Act, Anti-Drug Abuse Programs and Local Delinquency Prevention 
Programs. Additional sections include a program suggested by Senator 
Bingaman to establish a competitive grant program to reduce truancy, 
with priority given to efforts to replicate successful programs.
  The bill would also reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act (JJDPA) in a similar fashion to H.R. 1818, a bill passed 
by the House with strong bipartisan support in the last Congress. This 
section creates a new juvenile justice block grant program and retains 
the four core protections for youth in the juvenile justice system, 
while adopting greater flexibility for rural areas.
  Last year, the Senate Republicans tried to gut these core protections 
in their juvenile crime bill, S. 10. This Democratic crime bill puts 
ideology aside, and follows the advice of numerous child advocacy 
experts--including the Children's Defense Fund, National Collaboration 
for Youth, Youth Law Center and National Network for Youth--who believe 
these key protections must be preserved in order to protect juveniles 
who have been arrested or detained. These core protections ensure that 
juveniles are not housed with adults, do not have verbal or physical 
contact with adult inmates, and any disproportionate confinement of 
minority youth is addressed by the States. If these protections are 
abolished, many more youth may end up committing suicide or being 
released with serious physical or emotional scars.
  Title V of the bill contains five subtitles on combating illegal drug 
use. Illegal drugs are too often at the heart of crime. This Act would 
protect our children by increasing penalties for selling drugs to kids 
and drug trafficking in or near schools, and cracking down on ``club 
drugs.'' It goes a step further and encourages pharmacotherapy research 
to develop medications for the treatment of drug addiction, a proposal 
Senator Biden has urged. It also funds drug courts, which subject 
eligible drug offenders to programs of intensive supervision.
  Title VI of the bill is intended to increase the rights of victims 
within the criminal justice system. The criminal is only half of the 
equation. This bill guarantees the rights of crime victims. All States 
recognize victims' rights in some form, but they often lack the 
training and resources to make those rights a reality. This bill 
provides a model Bill of Rights for crime victims in the federal 
system, and makes available to the States grants to fund the hiring of 
State and Federal victim-witness advocates, training, and the 
technology necessary for model notification systems. This bill would 
help make victims' rights a reality.
  Specifically, this title reforms Federal law and evidence to enhance 
victims' participation in all stages of criminal proceedings by giving 
victims' a right to notice of detention hearings, plea agreements, 
sentencing, probation revocations, escapes or releases from prison, and 
to allocution at hearings, as well as grants for obtaining state-of-
the-art systems for providing notice. In addition, this title would 
provide grant programs to study the effectiveness of the restorative 
justice approach for victims.
  Title VII of the bill of details provisions for combating money 
laundering. Crime increasingly has an international face, from drug 
kingpins to millionaire terrorists, like Usama bin Laden. The money 
laundering provisions of this bill hit these international criminals 
where it hurts most--in the pocketbook.
  These provisions would provide important tools not just to combat 
international terrorism but drug trafficking as well. We must have 
interdiction, we must have treatment programs; we must tell kids to say 
``No'' to drugs. But we have to do more, and taking the profit away 
from international drug lords is an effective weapon. This Democratic 
crime bill would strengthen these laws.
  FBI Director Freeh testified last year before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee that enhanced money laundering provisions would be an 
important tool against the likes of international terrorists, such as 
bin Laden. Director Freeh praised the following provisions set forth in 
this title of the bill.
  Fugitive Disentitlement to stop drug kingpins, terrorists and other 
international fugitives from using our courts to fight to keep the 
proceeds of the very crimes for which they are wanted. Criminals should 
not be able to use our courts to their benefit at the same time they 
are evading our laws.
  Immediate seizure of U.S. assets of foreign criminals, so terrorists 
and drug lords will not be able to keep their money one step ahead of 
the law enforcement.
  Limits on Foreign Bank Secrecy to stop criminals from hiding behind 
foreign bank secrecy laws while they use U.S. courts.
  These and other money laundering provisions in the bill should find 
bipartisan support for quick passage before the end of this Congress.

[[Page 698]]

  Title VIII sets forth important proposals for combating international 
crime. In particular, the bill would punish violent crimes or murder 
against American citizens abroad, deny safe havens to international 
criminals by strengthening extradition, promote cooperation with 
foreign governments on sharing witnesses and evidence, and streamline 
the prosecution of international crimes in U.S. courts. Provisions 
include:
  Giving the FBI authority to investigate and prosecute the murder or 
extortion of U.S. citizens and state and local officials involved in 
federally-sponsored programs abroad;
  Providing for extradition under certain circumstances for offenses 
not covered in a treaty or absent a treaty;
  Giving the Attorney General authority to transfer and share witnesses 
with foreign governments, and obtain and use foreign evidence in 
criminals cases;
  Prohibiting fugitives from benefitting from time served abroad 
fighting extradition;
  Adding serious computer crimes as predicate offenses for which 
wiretaps may be authorized; and
  Providing court order procedures for law enforcement access to stored 
information on computer networks.
  Finally, Title IX contains provisions to strengthen the air, land and 
sea borders of this country. The bill would punish violence at the 
borders, increase authority of maritime law enforcement officers at the 
borders, increase penalties for smuggling contraband and other 
products, strengthen immigration laws to exclude fleeing felons, and 
persons involved in racketeering and arms trafficking. Specific 
sections include:
  Punishing ``port-running,'' which is driving or crashing through 
Customs entry ports;
  Sanctions for not cooperating with maritime law enforcement officers 
by obstructing lawful boarding requests and commands to ``heave to''; 
and
  Denying admission into the U.S. of persons whom consular officials 
have reason to believe are involved in RICO acts, arms trafficking, or 
alien smuggling for profit, or are fleeing foreign prosecution.
  The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act is a 
comprehensive and realistic set of proposals for keeping our schools 
safe, our streets safe, our citizens safe when they go abroad, and our 
borders secure. I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis for 
passage of as much of this bill as possible during the 106th Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Cleland, Mr. 
        Harkin, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Bryan):
  S. 10. A bill to provide health protection and needed assistance for 
older Americans, including access to health insurance for 55- to 65-
year-olds, assistance for individuals with long-term care needs, and 
social services for older Americans; to the Committee on Finance.


               the democratic agenda for senior citizens

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Daschle for his 
leadership in making these vital health programs that mean so much to 
older Americans a central part of the Democratic agenda. Our proposal 
for Early Access to Medicare is a key part of these initiatives. It 
provides a lifeline for millions of Americans who are within a few 
years of the age of eligibility for Medicare and who have lost their 
health insurance coverage or fear that they will lose it. Our proposal 
also includes President Clinton's program to assist disabled senior 
citizens and their families--assistance that can mean the difference 
between institutionalization in a nursing home and the ability to 
remain in their own home. In addition, our proposal extends and 
strengthens the Older Americans Act, which provides valuable services 
for senior citizens, from ``Meals on Wheels'' to employment 
opportunities.
  Providing early access to Medicare will offer help and hope to more 
than three million Americans aged 55 to 64 who have no health insurance 
today. They are too young for Medicare, and unable to obtain private 
coverage they can afford. Often, they are victims of corporate 
downsizing, or of a company's decision to cancel their health 
insurance.
  In the past year, the number of the uninsured in this age group 
increased at a faster rate than other age groups. These Americans have 
been left out and left behind through no fault of their own--often 
after decades of hard work and reliable insurance coverage. It is time 
for Congress to provide a helping hand.
  Many of these citizens have serious health problems that threaten to 
destroy the savings of a lifetime and that prevent them from finding or 
keeping a job. Even those without current health problems know that a 
single serious illness could wipe out their savings.
  These uninsured Americans tend to be in poorer health than other 
members of their age group. Their health continues to deteriorate, the 
longer they remain uninsured. This unnecessary burden of illness is a 
preventable human tragedy. It adds to Medicare's long-term costs, 
because when these individuals turn 65, they join Medicare with greater 
and more costly needs for health care.
  Even those with good coverage today can't be certain that it will be 
there tomorrow. No one nearing retirement can be confident that the 
health insurance they have today will protect them until they qualify 
for Medicare at 65.
  Our proposal offers several types of assistance. Any uninsured 
American who is 62 or older can buy into Medicare. Over time, the 
participants will pay the full cost of the coverage, but to help keep 
premiums affordable, they can defer payment of part of the premiums 
until they turn 65 and Medicare starts to pay most of their health care 
costs. Once they turn 65, this deferred portion of the premium will be 
paid back at a modest monthly rate estimated at about $10 per month for 
each year of participation in the buy-in program.
  In addition, individuals age 55-61 who lose their health insurance 
because they are laid off or because their company closes will also be 
able to buy into Medicare, but they will not qualify for the deferred 
premium. Also, people who have retired before age 65 with the 
expectation of employer-paid health insurance would be allowed to buy 
into the company's program for active workers if the company drops its 
retirement coverage before they are eligible for Medicare.
  Our proposal is a lifeline for all these Americans. It is also a 
constructive step toward the day when every American will be guaranteed 
the fundamental right to health care.
  In the past, opponents have waged a campaign of disinformation that 
this sensible plan is somehow a threat to Medicare. They are wrong--and 
the American people understand that they are wrong. Under our proposal, 
the participants themselves will ultimately pay the full cost of this 
new coverage. The modest short-term budget impact can be financed 
through savings obtained by reducing fraud and abuse in Medicare.
  Every American should have the security and peace of mind of knowing 
that their final years in the workforce will not be haunted by the fear 
of devastating medical costs or the inability to meet basic medical 
needs. Uninsured Americans who are too young for Medicare but too old 
to purchase affordable private insurance coverage deserve our help--and 
we intend to see that they get it.
  Additional assistance for the disabled is also very important. Few 
issues are more important to senior citizens and their families than 
how to care for a severely disable order person at home. No senior 
citizens who want to remain in their own homes should be forced to 
enter a nursing home. Children who want to take disabled parents into 
their own homes deserve support. The issue of caring for the severely 
disabled at home is not just a concern for senior citizens. No parent 
should be forced to place a disabled child in institutional care. No 
disabled citizen who wants to live independently and can do so should 
be denied that opportunity.
  President Clinton's proposal is not a comprehensive solution to the 
problem

[[Page 699]]

of financing needed long-term care. It will not end the enormous 
burdens that caregivers often assume. But it is an important and 
constructive step that will provide needed help to millions of 
families.
  Under the proposal, disabled persons or their caregivers will be 
entitled to a tax credit of $1,000--far less than the total cost of 
caring for a disabled person, but still significant relief that can 
help buy a critical piece of equipment, pay for a period of respite 
care, or meet other unmet needs.
  The proposal also creates a National Family Caregiver Support Program 
to develop community resources for counseling, respite care and other 
services, training in assisting persons with disabilities, and 
providing information about resources available to meet the needs of 
the disabled and their caregivers.
  One of the most difficult aspects of caring for a disabled parent or 
child is not knowing where to turn for help, or finding that help is 
not available. This program will help to meet these needs.
  Finally, the legislation extends and strengthens the Older Americans 
Act, a step that is long overdue. The Act provides essential services 
that assist senior citizens in every community. It supports 57 state 
agencies on aging, 660 area agencies, and 27,000 service providers who 
work with the elderly.
  The Act is an essential source of nutrition for many low income and 
frail elderly. In FY 1996, more than 3 million older persons were 
served 238 million meals with funding from the Act. The Act supported 
transportation, assistance, home care, recreation and other important 
services provided by 6,400 senior centers. It funded more than 40 
million rides and 15 million home care services to older persons. The 
Act also pays for training and research in the field of aging. It helps 
unemployed low-income older persons to find employment opportunities. 
And it provides protection and advocacy services for vulnerable senior 
citizens.
  Elderly Americans and those nearing retirement have worked all their 
lives to build America. When they face basic needs for health care and 
long-term care, they deserve the best help that America can provide. 
These proposals are important and timely. They will make a very 
important difference in the lives of millions of our fellow citizens, 
and they deserve prompt enactment by the Congress.
                                  s____
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM:
  S. 11. A bill for the relief of Wei Jingsheng; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


                WEI JINGSHENG FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE ACT

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to seek my colleagues' 
support for the Wei Jingsheng Freedom of Conscience Act. This bill will 
grant lawful permanent residence to writer and philosopher Wei 
Jingsheng, one of the most heroic individuals the international human 
rights community has known. This bill passed the Senate by unanimous 
consent in 1998 but was not acted upon in the House before the end of 
last session.
  Mr. President, when I first introduced this legislation I noted that, 
for years, Wei has stood up to an oppressive Chinese government, 
calling for freedom and democracy through speeches, writings, and as a 
prominent participant in the Democracy Wall movement. I also noted that 
his dedication to the principles we hold dear, and on which our nation 
was founded, brought him 15 years of torture and imprisonment at the 
hands of the Chinese communist regime. Seriously ill, Wei was released 
only after great international public outcry. Now essentially exiled, 
he lives in the United States on a temporary visa and cannot return to 
China without facing further imprisonment.
  Now more than ever, Mr. President, I believe that granting Wei 
permanent residence will show that America stands by those who are 
willing to stand up for the principles we cherish. It also will help 
Wei in his continuing fight for freedom and democracy in China.
  I would like to thank Senators Feingold, Allard, and Wellstone for 
cosponsoring this bill. I should note also that this legislation has 
been endorsed by important human rights groups such as the Laogai 
Research Foundation and Human Rights in China, two organizations 
devoted, at great risk to their members and their members' families, to 
combating oppression in communist China.
  I urge my colleagues to send a strong signal about America's 
commitment to human rights, human freedom, and the dignity of the 
individual by passing this bill to grant Wei Jingsheng lawful permanent 
residence in the United States.
  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. 11

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Wei 
     Jingsheng Freedom of Conscience Act''.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101 et seq.), Wei Jingsheng shall be held and considered to 
     have been lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence as of the date of the enactment of this 
     Act upon payment of the required visa fee.

     SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

       Upon the granting of permanent residence to Wei Jingsheng 
     as provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall 
     instruct the proper officer to reduce by one during the 
     current fiscal year the total number of immigrant visas 
     available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
     under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Mack, Mr. Abraham, 
        Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Coverdell):
  S. 13. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
additional tax incentives for education; to the Committee on Finance.


          Collegiate Learning and Student Savings (CLASS) Act

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the concept of 
prepaid tuition plans and why they are critically important to 
America's families.
  As a parent who has put two children through college and who has 
another currently enrolled in college, I know first-hand that America's 
families are struggling to meet the rising costs of higher education. 
In fact, American families have already accrued more college debt in 
the 1990's than during the previous three decades combined.
  The reason is twofold: the federal government subsidizes student debt 
with interest rate breaks and penalizes educational savings by taxing 
the interest earned on those savings.
  In recent years, however, many families have tackled rising tuition 
costs by taking advantage of pre-paid college tuition and savings 
plans. These plans allow families to purchase tuition credits years in 
advance.
  Mr. President, 39 states, like my home state of Alabama, along with a 
nationwide consortium of more than 100 private schools, have 
established these tuition savings and prepaid tuition plans. These 
plans are extremely popular with parents, students, and alumni. They 
make it easier for families to save for college, while at the same time 
taking the uncertainty out of the future cost of college.
  Congress has supported participating families by expanding the scope 
of the pre-paid tuition plans and by deferring the taxes on the 
interest earned until the student goes off to college.
  Mr. President, today, I along with Senators Bob Graham, Connie Mack, 
Paul Coverdell, Spencer Abraham, and Thad Cochran are introducing ``The 
Collegiate Learning and Student Savings (CLASS) Act'', a common sense 
piece of legislation which could help more than 30 million students 
afford a college education.
  The CLASS Act will make the interest earned on all education pre-paid 
plans completely tax-free.
  Currently, the interest earned by families saving for college is 
taxed twice. Families are taxed on the income when they earn it, and 
then again on the interest that accrues from the savings.

[[Page 700]]

  On the other hand, the federal government subsidizes student loans by 
deferring interest payments until after graduation. It is no wonder 
that families are going heavily into debt and at the same time are 
struggling to save for college. We strongly believe that this trend 
must no longer continue.
  In order to provide families a new alternative, The CLASS Act will 
provide tax-free treatment to all pre-paid savings plans.
  This bipartisan piece of legislation is sound education and tax 
policy that provides incentives for savings rather than bureaucratic 
solutions. For a small cost, the CLASS Act will provide billions in 
potential savings to help families afford a college education.
  Mr. President, many individuals have questioned whether these plans 
will benefit all types of students. Let me say this, it is wrong to 
assume that tuition savings and prepaid plans benefit mainly the 
wealthy. In fact, the track record of existing state pre-paid plans 
indicates that working, middle-income families, not the rich, benefit 
the most from pre-paid plans.
  For example, families with an annual income of less than $35,000 
purchased 62 percent of the prepaid tuition contracts sold by the State 
of Pennsylvania in 1996. And the average monthly contribution to a 
family's college savings account during 1995 in Kentucky was $43.
  Tax free treatment for prepaid tuition plans must become law. The 
federal government can no longer subsidize student debt with interest 
rate breaks and penalize educational savings by taxing the interest 
earned by families who are desperately trying to save for college. If 
these goals are achieved, the federal government would no longer be 
penalizing families for saving but rather be providing families with 
help they need to meet the cost of college through savings rather than 
through debt.
  Mr. President, this legislation has received a tremendous amount of 
support from the colleges and universities, higher education 
associations, as well as several public policy think tanks. These 
include: The Career College Association, the National Association of 
Independent Colleges and Universities, the American Council on 
Education, the State of Virginia's Prepaid Education Program, The 
Heritage Foundation and Citizens for a Sound Economy.
  The idea of tax-free treatment for prepaid tuition plans has also 
been endorsed by the Washington Post, Time Magazine, and the Birmingham 
News.
  Mr. President, in particular, I would like to call my colleagues 
attention to a September 25, 1998 Heritage Foundation report, authored 
by Rea Hederman, a Research Analyst in the Domestic Policy Department 
at Heritage. This shows that over 30 million children stand to benefit 
from expanded education savings accounts and tuition prepayment plans. 
I'd encourage my colleagues to review the Heritage report, which breaks 
down these numbers by both State and Congressional district.
  Mr. President, I would also like to ask that a copy of this report be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of my good friend 
Congressman Joe Scarborough, who has introduced the House companion to 
the CLASS Act, H.R. 254.
  Mr. President, the time to act is now. I encourage my colleagues to 
push for this common sense piece of legislation. This Congress should 
call on the leadership of both Houses, to make this legislation, which 
cold help more than 30 million students afford a college education, a 
part of any tax bill we consider this year.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a report and letters of 
support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       National Association of    
                                              Independent Colleges


                                             and Universities,

                                                  August 25, 1998.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sessions: On behalf of the over 900 
     independent colleges and universities that make up the 
     National Association of Independent Colleges and 
     Universities, I want to express our support for your 
     continued efforts to allow private colleges and universities 
     to establish prepaid tuition plans that would enjoy the same 
     tax treatment and preferences as state sponsored plans. We 
     agree that legislation is desperately needed to allow 
     students and families who want to utilize prepaid tuition 
     plans to dedicate the funds to the institution of their 
     choice. Your legislation allowing private colleges and 
     universities to compete on a level playing field in the tax 
     arena is absolutely necessary and fair.
       We look forward to continuing to work with you and your 
     colleagues in both the House and Senate to push for the 
     inclusion of tax relief for private pre-paid tuition programs 
     in tax legislation expected before the 105th Congress 
     adjourns. This issue is a top tax priority for independent 
     higher education and we certainly support your efforts.
       Again, thank you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if 
     and when I can be of further assistance on this or any issue 
     of importance to independent higher education.
           Sincerely,
                                                  David L. Warren,
     President.
                                  ____

         Commonwealth of Virginia, Higher Education Tuition Trust 
           Fund, Richmond, VA,
                                               September 16, 1998.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     The U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Re: Virginia prepaid education program--support of S. 2425.
       Dear Senator Sessions: Thank you for your continuing 
     support of legislation to encourage college savings through 
     qualified tuition programs like the Virginia Prepaid 
     Education Program (``VPEP''). VPEP now represents over a 
     third of a billion dollars pledged to the futures of more 
     than 21,000 children, and we are about to begin our third 
     enrollment period on October 1.
       In our continuing efforts to make a college education more 
     accessible and affordable for families, we very much 
     appreciate your sponsorship of S. 2425, the Collegiate 
     Learning and Student Saving Act, which would provide an 
     exclusion from gross income of interest earnings on qualified 
     tuition programs like VPEP.
       VPEP strongly supports an exclusion from gross income for 
     earnings on qualified tuition program accounts. This tax 
     treatment would be less burdensome to administer than current 
     tax provisions, and would result in better compliance and 
     less cost to the programs and their participants. More 
     importantly, an exclusion from gross income would provide a 
     powerful additional incentive for families to save early for 
     college expenses.
       Please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff should you 
     need any additional information or have any questions. Thank 
     you for your continued interest in and support of qualified 
     tuition programs and the hundreds of thousands of children 
     for whom college is now an affordable reality.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Diana F. Cantor,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

         Enterprise State Junior College, Enterprise AL,
                                                  October 1, 1998.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sessions. I have reviewed S. 2425 with a great 
     deal of enthusiasm. I believe that it is a much needed piece 
     of legislation. It will certainly help many Alabamians who 
     are struggling to secure a college education for their 
     children.
       Several members of the Enterprise State Junior College 
     family are participants in the Alabama Prepaid College 
     Tuition Program. I know that they will be pleased to learn 
     that those hard earned funds may soon be exempted from the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Likewise, I am sure that 
     citizens in Florida, Georgia and Kentucky will be 
     appreciative for the protection that the bill will afford 
     them.
       Senator Sessions, this type legislation clearly 
     demonstrates both your leadership and sensitivity to the 
     needs of Alabama citizens. As the state legislative contact 
     person for the American Association of Community Colleges, I 
     will encourage my colleagues to support and petition our 
     friends nationwide to encourage passage of the language.
           Sincerely,
                                             Stafford L. Thompson,
     President.
                                  ____

                                               Samford University,


                                               Birmingham, AL,

                                                  August 14, 1998.
     Hon. Jeff B. Sessions,
     U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
       Dear Jeff: I was delighted to learn of your sponsorship of 
     legislation which would clarify Section 529 so that 
     appropriate securities statutes apply to prepaid tuition 
     plans for private institutions in S. 2425, The Collegiate 
     Learning and Student Savings (CLASS) Act of 1998.
       As you may know, Samford University has joined with nearly 
     sixty independent institutions of higher education to form a 
     consortium which is working hard to establish the

[[Page 701]]

     first nationwide prepaid tuition program geared to American 
     families who want to enroll their children at independent 
     institutions. We are convinced this plan will offer millions 
     of future students and their families a convenient and 
     affordable method to save for college. Moreover, our 
     institutions will be able to offer future tuition at current 
     or discounted-current rates.
       In addition, I believe it is important to secure tax 
     treatment for prepaid tuition plans for private institutions, 
     similar to that currently offered to state-sponsored tuition 
     plans. Such tax treatment is essential to the success of our 
     efforts by making these programs more economically 
     attractive.
       I continue to appreciate all that you are doing for our 
     state and thank you for your leadership on this proposal and 
     your commitment to American higher education. If I can be of 
     further assistance as you move forward, please do not 
     hesitate to contact me.
           Very sincerely yours,
                                                  Thomas E. Corts,
     President.
                                  ____

                                      Birmingham-Southern College,


                                               Birmingham, AL,

                                                   August 5, 1998.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
       Dear Jeff: I am writing to personally thank you for your 
     continued efforts to bring about legislation to allow private 
     college prepaid tuition plans. The introduction of your and 
     Senators Coverdale, Graham and McConnell's ``Colleagiate 
     Learning and Student Savings Act'' is a valuable step in the 
     right direction to allow parents and students to save for all 
     of their educational needs, both public and private. I 
     applaud your efforts to include the tax-exempt status of 
     earnings on prepaid tuition plans that is in the bill. 
     Obviously, this will help students and families be better 
     able to afford college.
       We certainly need a national prepaid tuition plan. As you 
     know, Birmingham-Southern College is one of more than sixty 
     private institutions willing to take the responsibility for 
     establishing a plan if it could be permitted by your 
     legislation. Most importantly, the private college prepaid 
     college tuition plan should be good for the nation, and only 
     the national plan lowers costs without lowering the quality 
     of the best system of higher education in the world.
       We at Birmingham-Southern, stand ready to assist you in 
     getting S. 2425 passed. Please let us know what we can do to 
     assist. Again, thank you for your commitment to higher 
     education.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Neal R. Berte,
     President.
                                  ____


                       [From Time, Dec. 7, 1998]

New Way To Save--State College-Saving Plans Offer Tax Advantages to All 
               and Can Be Used at Any School in the U.S.

                           (By Daniel Kadlec)

       The best college-savings program you never heard about 
     keeps getting better. As you think about year-end tax moves, 
     consider dropping some cash into a state-sponsored plan where 
     money for college grows tax-deferred and may garner a fat 
     state income tax exemption as well. This plan is relative new 
     and often gets confused with more common prepaid-tuition 
     plans, in which you pay today and attend later--removing 
     worries about higher tuition in the future. Savings plans are 
     vastly different and in most cases superior because they are 
     more flexible.
       Prepaid plans offer tax advantages, and some are portable, 
     but many still apply only to public colleges within the 
     taxpayer's state. What if Junior gets accepted to Harvard? 
     You can get your contributions back. But some states refund 
     only principal, beating you out of years' worth of investment 
     gains. And state prepaid plans make it tougher to get student 
     aid because the moneys is held in the student's name. With 
     savings plans the money is in a parent's name, where it 
     counts less heavily in student-aid formulas--and you can set 
     aside as much as $100,000 for expenses at any U.S. college.
       Both the prepaid and the college-savings plans vary from 
     state to state. Check out the website collegesavings.org for 
     details. It's a fast-moving area. In the next few months, 
     eight states will join the 15 that already have state 
     college-savings programs. Those are mostly in addition to the 
     19 that have prepaid-tuition plans. Only Massachusetts will 
     probably offer both.
       Most of the newer savings plans make contributions 
     deductible against state taxes. New York, for example, 
     launched its plan two months ago. It permits couples to set 
     aside up to $10,000 a year per student and lets New York 
     residents deduct the full amount from their income on their 
     state return. Missouri will approve a tax-deductible savings 
     plan in December. Minnesota is expected to adopt a plan in 
     which the state matches 5% of your contributions. These 
     college-savings plans are open to everyone, regardless of 
     income--in contrast to the Roth IRA and other federal savings 
     plans in which eligibility begins to phase out for couples 
     earning more than $100,000.
       If your state doesn't offer a college-savings plan, you can 
     still participate through an out-of-state plan. You won't get 
     the state tax deduction, but you will get tax-deferred 
     investment growth; and when the money is tapped, it will be 
     taxed at the student's rate (usually 15%). Fidelity 
     Investments (800-544-1722; www.state.nh.us), which runs the 
     New Hampshire savings plan, and TIAA-CREF (877-697-2837; 
     www.nysaves.org), which runs the New York plan, make it easy. 
     If your state later offers a savings plan with a tax 
     deduction, you can transfer your account penalty free.
       Both plans invest mostly in stocks in the early years and 
     slowly shift into bonds and money markets as your student 
     nears college age. You get no say in this allocation. The 
     impact of tax deferral is big. TIAA-CREF estimates that 
     someone in the 28% tax bracket savings $5,000 a year and 
     mimicking its investments in a taxable account could expect 
     to accumulate $167,000 in 18 years. Deferring taxes and then 
     paying them at 15% brings the total to $190,000. The state 
     deduction, for those who qualify, pushes the nest egg to 
     $202,000.
                                  ____


               [From the Birmingham News, Aug. 2, 1998.]

 Borrowing an Idea--Prepaid Tuition Plans Good for Private Colleges as 
                                  Well

       State-run, prepaid college tuition plans, such as the one 
     offered in Alabama, are marvelous ideas that are becoming 
     more popular each year.
       They help make sending children to public colleges within 
     the reach of more families.
       It's great that some private colleges are now borrowing the 
     concept, helping families better afford college educations at 
     their schools, which often can be several times as expensive 
     as state-supported schools.
       Recently, some 56 private colleges--including Birmingham-
     Southern College and Samford University--became members of 
     Tuition Plan Inc., a new prepaid program designed to work 
     like the state-run tuition plans:
       Parents invest in the plan when their children are young--
     through one lump sum or through monthly payments--as a 
     shelter against inflation, and the fund invests the money to 
     cover future tuition obligations.
       With the private TPI, parents get another bonus; Colleges 
     agree upfront to discount their tuition a guaranteed amount, 
     as much as 50 percent at some schools. And, as with the 
     public school tuition pacts, if a child decides not to go to 
     a school for which his or her parents already have paid, the 
     student gets a refund plus some of the interest and minus a 
     penalty (neither of the amounts has been decided).
       Organizers hope to eventually sign up 400 to 500 member 
     schools.
       Some of the important details of TPI haven't yet been 
     worked out, such as how the money will be invested to 
     maximize return and security, but the concept is grand.
       Not only will it make private school more affordable for 
     more families, it could lessen the need for financial aid, 
     since four-fifths of all current students at private colleges 
     and universities receive some form of it.
       And because schools will be discounting their tuition to 
     plan participants, it also might stem rising tuition costs.
       This time, it's the private sector that's learning from 
     government.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Aug. 7, 1998]

 If It's for College, Taxes Are Deferred--New State Plans Offer Better 
           Returns on Long-Term Savings for Higher Education

                        (By Albert B. Crenshaw)

       A growing number of states, taking advantage of recent tax 
     law changes, are rushing to create savings plans that enable 
     families to set aside tens of thousands of dollars a year in 
     tax-deferred accounts to pay college costs.
       The new programs allow families to make upfront investments 
     of as much as $50,000--building accounts that could dwarf the 
     $500-a-year Education IRA enacted with much fanfare last 
     year. The initial contribution is not deductible from federal 
     taxes, but the account's earnings are free of tax until the 
     child goes to college, when they are taxed at the child's 
     rate.
       The programs, resulting from several seemingly modest 
     changes in tax law in the past two years, have the potential 
     to allow families to save hundreds of thousands of dollars 
     for college while paying sharply reduced taxes on the 
     earnings.
       ``We think of it as the best-kept secret of the Taxpayer 
     Relief Act'' of 1997, said Stephen Mitchell of Fidelity 
     Investments, the big mutual fund operator.
       States can tailor the programs as they see fit, but 
     typically they are not restricted to residents of the 
     sponsoring state or to colleges within their borders.
       The states are crafting the programs in response to 
     constituent complaints about the soaring cost of higher 
     education. The savings accounts are expected to appeal in 
     particular to middle-class families that earn too much to 
     qualify for financial aid but often too little to cover 
     college costs without heavy borrowing. Affluent families 
     would benefit greatly as well, experts say, because they can 
     afford to put large sums into the plans.
       There is no limit on the incomes of contributors.
       Although sponsored by the states, the programs are 
     typically operated by a large

[[Page 702]]

     money-management fund, which invests the cash and handles the 
     administration of the accounts. Already, Fidelity is 
     operating these plans, variously known as savings trusts or 
     529 plans (after the tax code section permitting them), for 
     Delaware and New Hampshire.
       New York and the Teachers Investment and Annuity 
     Association are launching one next month. At least five other 
     states offer some type of savings trust, and at least a dozen 
     jurisdictions, including Virginia and the District, are 
     studying the possibility.
       New Hampshire established its trust with Fidelity as 
     manager July 1. According to State Treasurer Georgie Thomas 
     and a Fidelity spokesman, it works like this:
       When a parent or other donor opens an account, the donor's 
     payments go into the trust where they are pooled with others 
     and invested in one of seven portfolios of Fidelity mutual 
     funds.
       No taxes are paid on the earnings until the money is 
     withdrawn, and proceeds can be used for room and board as 
     well as for tuition. Then, the income is taxable to the 
     student, who presumably would have little other income and 
     would be in a lower tax bracket than the parents.
       The total allowable contribution for a single beneficiary 
     is currently $100,311.
       If a parent were able to put $50,000 into one of these 
     accounts for a newborn, and the account earned 10 percent for 
     18 years, it would total about $278,000 when the child went 
     off to college. At 8 percent, it would amount to just under 
     $200,000.
       ``I think it's a great plan for upper-income and wealthy 
     people to use,'' said Raymond Loewe of College Money, a 
     Marlton, N.J., firm specializing in planning for college.
       Thomas, though, said she sees it as ``a middle-class 
     program.'' Low-income people qualify for government grants 
     and scholarships, and the wealthy can afford to pay out of 
     pocket, she said, while the middle class is forced to borrow.
       While it's possible to make a large contribution, accounts 
     can be opened with much smaller amounts. With automatic 
     payments, the plan will allow people to put in as little as 
     $50 a month, according to Fidelity.
       If the child doesn't go to college for whatever reason, the 
     account can be transferred to a sibling or other beneficiary.
       Also, parents can get at the money if they need it. Amounts 
     can be withdrawn for any reason, though earnings would be 
     subject to income tax plus a 15 percent penalty.
       Politicians at the national and state levels have sought 
     through a variety of ways to ease the burden of college costs 
     for middle-class voters. State officials fear that if they do 
     nothing, they risk losing residents or their money to other 
     states with attractive programs.
       Prepaid tuition plans have been successful in big states 
     with attractive public college systems. But smaller 
     jurisdictions, such as New Hampshire, Delaware and the 
     District, may find it difficult to attract enough families to 
     a prepaid program to make it viable.
       Savings trusts have existed in more limited form since 
     1990, but they have become much more attractive over the last 
     two years because of changes in the tax law made by Congress, 
     at the request of several states.
       In 1996, Congress added Section 529 to the federal tax 
     code, clarifying that investments in such trusts would be 
     tax-deferred and the distributions taxable at the student's 
     rate. Before that, their tax status was uncertain. Then last 
     year's tax law included provisions that allow a family to 
     contribute up to $50,000 in a lump sum to the trusts without 
     incurring a gift tax, and which allow the money to be used 
     for college expenses beyond tuition.
       Because of the enormous growth potential--prepaid plans 
     already have attracted hundreds of millions of dollars--big 
     money managers are actively vying for a piece of the action. 
     ``The big funds are out there in force,'' said Diana F. 
     Cantor, executive director of the Virginia Higher Education 
     Tuition Trust Fund.
       Fidelity's Mitchell said the programs fill a gap in 
     government efforts to assist families in saving for college. 
     The Education IRA, though its proceeds are tax-free, is too 
     restricted, and alternatives such as giving money to a child 
     have a variety of tax and other pitfalls, he said.
       ``We think for most people who are able to save at all, 
     $500 a year just isn't enough to let people get to their 
     goals,'' Mitchell said.
       The new savings trusts differ from prepaid tuition plans 
     that many states, including Virginia and Maryland, have 
     offered in recent years.
       While prepaid tuition plans promise to pay the tuition no 
     matter what the inflation rate, savings trusts do not. The 
     beneficiary gets whatever the investment amounts to when it's 
     time to go to college--and that amount may be more or less 
     than needed. With prepaid tuition, the state would cover a 
     shortfall; with a savings trust, that would be up to the 
     student.
       Also, most prepaid tuition plans are restricted to state 
     residents and state institutions--conditions that limit their 
     appeal to many families.
       This was a factor in New Hampshire's decision to go with a 
     savings trust, said Thomas, the state treasurer. ``We are a 
     small state. We have a lot of out-of-state students coming 
     into our schools, and conversely we have a lot of New 
     Hampshire students going to out-of-state schools,'' she said.
                                  ____


  [A Report of the Heritage Center for Data Analysis, Sept. 25, 1998]

         Who Would Benefit From Prepaid College Tuition Plans?

                          (By Rea S. Hederman)

       In 1997, Congress enacted legislation to provide taxpaying 
     Americans with new ways to save for their children's college 
     education. Specifically, Congress created tax-advantaged 
     ``education IRAs'' in the Taxpayer's Relief Act of 1997, 
     increasing the attractiveness of state-sponsored tuition 
     savings and prepayment plans. Many Members of Congress now 
     want to expand these opportunities.
       Advoactes of expansion claim that these plans will make it 
     easier for families to save for college and will take the 
     uncertainty out of planning for future costs of college 
     education. They argue that it is time for Congress and 
     President Bill Clinton to eliminate the double taxation of 
     interest earned through these programs and end the tax 
     disparity that currently exists between public and private 
     colleges.
       Indeed, the House Ways and Means Committee recently 
     adopted, as part of its $80 billion tax-cut package, a modest 
     expansion of tuition savings and prepayment plans. H.R. 4579 
     would extend the same tax treatment that state-sponsored 
     plans enjoy under the current law to plans at private 
     colleges and universities.
       Under this legislation, federal income tax on all interest 
     earned through the plans--whether public or private--would be 
     deferred until the student enrolls in college. The 
     committee's proposal, however, does not go far enough for 
     some Members who want to make all earnings through all of the 
     tuition savings and prepayment plans tax-free, thus vastly 
     expanding their benefits to participating families and 
     children.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       How many children would benefit from the universal 
     availability of tax-advantaged tuition savings and prepayment 
     plans? A Center for Data Analysis study shows that about 30 
     million children could benefit, as demonstrated in the 
     attached table by state and congressional district.
       It should be noted that this study does not calculate the 
     financial benefits that might flow to families from expanding 
     tuition savings and prepayment plans, though the numbers 
     doubtless are significant. American families accumulated more 
     college debt during the first five years of the 1990s than in 
     the previous three decades combined.\2\ Recognizing that this 
     trend cannot continue, several states have established 
     tuition savings and prepaid tuition plans.\3\
       A common criticism of educational savings accounts is that 
     they are a tax break solely for the rich and upper class, so 
     not many children will benefit from them. However, the 
     experience of the existing state plans indicates that 
     working, middle-income families represent a significant 
     portion of participants.\4\ For example, families with annual 
     incomes of less than $35,000 purchased 62 percent of the 
     prepaid tuition contracts sold by Pennsylvania in 1996. The 
     average monthly contribution to a family's college savings 
     account during 1995 in Kentucky was 443.
       The attached table shows the number of children who stand 
     to benefit from expanded educational savings accounts and 
     tuition prepayment plans.


                              Methodology

       The data in the attached table came from the 1997 March 
     Current Population Survey produced by the Bureau of the 
     Census, and other data tabulated by the Census Bureau for The 
     Heritage Foundation.\5\
       Children were considered eligible if they were members of 
     family that had an annual monetary income of at least 125 
     percent of the poverty threshold.\6\ The analysis was 
     conducted at the state level, which gave the aggregate number 
     of children eligible. The children were distributed based on 
     each district's percentage of children above the 125 percent 
     of poverty level.
       Finally, the number of children in each district was 
     multiplied by the percentage of eligible high school 
     graduates in 1994 who went on to attend college in that 
     state.\7\


                               footnotes

     \1\ John S. Barry, ``Why Congress Must Fix the Tax Bill's 
     Educational Savings Plans,'' Heritage Foundation Executive 
     Memorandum No. 491, September 3, 1997. Legislation has been 
     introduced by Representative Bill Archer (R-TX), Kay Granger 
     (R-TX), Philip English (R-PA), and Gerald Weller (R-IL), and 
     Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL), William Roth (R-DE), Bob 
     Graham (D-FL), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Paul Coverdell (R-GA), 
     Thad Cochran (R-MS), Rod Grams (R-MN), and Spencer Abraham 
     (R-MI).
     \2\ ``College Debt and the American Family,'' Report from the 
     Education Resources Institutes and the Institute for Higher 
     Education Policy, September 1995, p. 6.
     \3\ For an overview of the state-based plans, see College 
     Savings Plans Network, National Assocication of State 
     Treasurers, ``Special Report on State College Plans'' 
     (Lexington, Ky.: Council of State Governments, 1996).
     \4\ Nina H. Shokraii and John S. Barry, ``Education: 
     Empowering Parents, Teachers, and Principals,'' in Stuart M. 
     Butler and Kim R. Holmes, eds., ``Issues '98: The Candidate's 
     Briefing Book'' (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation, 
     1998), p. 280.

[[Page 703]]

     \5\ Data available upon request from the author.
     \6\ At 125 percent of the poverty level, there is a notable 
     increase in the number of tax filers who could realize tax 
     savings from these plans.
     \7\ ``Quality Counts,'' Education Week, Vol. XII, No. 17 
     (January 8, 1998), p. 79.

 NUMBER OF CHILDREN WHO COULD BENEFIT FROM PREPAID TUITION PLANS (1997)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of eligible
                                                  children in families
                                                with income over 125% of
                                                      poverty level
       State and          U.S. Representative  -------------------------
congressional district          (party)                       Number who
                                                              are likely
                                                   Total      to attend
                                                             college \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama:
    1.................  S. Callahan (R).......      109,958       70,373
    2.................  T. Everett (R)........      115,268       73,771
    3.................  B. Riley (R)..........      108,420       69,389
    4.................  R. Aderholt (R).......      109,574       70,127
    5.................  B. Cramer (D).........      115,499       73,919
    6.................  S. Bachus (R).........      116,191       74,362
    7.................  E. Hilliard (D).......       93,876       60,081
Alaska:...............
    Single district...  D. Young (R)..........      192,307       71,154
Arkansas:
    1.................  M. Berry (D)..........      118,855       57,050
    2.................  V. Snyder (D).........      133,368       64,017
    3.................  A. Hutchinson (R).....      130,365       62,575
    4.................  J. Dickey (R).........      117,854       56,570
Arizona:
    1.................  M. Salmon (R).........      141,109       70,555
    2.................  E. Pastor (D).........      132,973       66,486
    3.................  B. Stump (R)..........      136,859       68,295
    4.................  J. Shadegg (R)........      139,219       69,609
    5.................  J. Kolbe (R)..........      128,124       64,062
    6.................  J.D. Hayworth (R).....      143,739       71,870
California:
    1.................  F. Riggs (R)..........      118,120       72,053
    2.................  W. Herger (R).........      108,623       66,260
    3.................  V. Fazio (D)..........      118,120       72,053
    4.................  J. Doolittle (R)......      119,307       72,777
    5.................  R. Matsui (D).........      106,249       64,812
    6.................  L. Woolsey (D)........      109,217       66,622
    7.................  G. Miller (D).........      121,682       74,226
    8.................  N. Pelosi (D).........       67,073       40,915
    9.................  B. Lee (D)............       89,629       54,674
    10................  E. Tauscher (D).......      124,649       76,036
    11................  R. Pombo (R)..........      120,494       73,502
    12................  T. Lantos (D).........      101,500       61,915
    13................  P. Stark (D)..........      125,243       76,398
    14................  A. Eshoo (D)..........       99,126       60,467
    15................  T. Cambell (R)........      112,184       68,433
    16................  Z. Lofgren (R)........      127,261       77,629
    17................  S. Farr (D)...........      118,536       72,307
    18................  G. Condit (D).........      128,211       78,209
    19................  G. Radanovich (R).....      118,702       72,408
    20................  C. Dooley (D).........      115,087       70,203
    21................  W. Thomas (R).........      125,718       76,688
    22................  L. Capps (D)..........      103,477       63,121
    23................  E. Gallegly (R).......      131,713       80,345
    24................  B. Sheman (D).........      105,655       64,450
    25................  B. McKeon (R).........      133,434       81,395
    26................  H. Berman (D).........      116,102       70,822
    27................  J. Rogan (R)..........       98,817       60,279
    28................  D. Dreier (R).........      126,430       77,122
    29................  H. Waxman (D).........       59,772       36,461
    30................  X. Becerra (D)........       98,889       60,322
    31................  M. Martinez (D).......      118,714       72,415
    32................  J. Dixon (D)..........       91,410       55,760
    33................  L. Roybal-Allard (D)..      115,075       70,196
    34................  E. Torres (D).........      134,740       82,191
    35................  M. Waters (D).........      111,223       67,846
    36................  H. Harman (D).........       94,555       57,679
    37................  J. Millender-McDon (D)      125,421       76,507
    38................  S. Horn (R)...........      102,865       62,748
    39................  E. Royce (R)..........      122,097       74,479
    40................  J. Lewis (R)..........      127,855       77,991
    41................  J. Kim (R)............      140,379       85,631
    42................  G. Brown (D)..........      143,584       87,586
    43................  K. Calvert (R)........      139,489       85,088
    44................  M. Bono (R)...........      116,636       71,148
    45................  D. Rohrabacher (R)....      100,313       61,191
    46................  L. Sanchez (D)........      121,147       73,900
    47................  C. Cox (R)............      113,965       69,519
    48................  R. Packard (R)........      123,450       75,305
    49................  B. Bilbray (R)........       74,523       45,459
    50................  B. Filner (D).........      119,901       73,140
    51................  R. Cunningham (R).....      120,732       73,646
    52................  D. Hunter (R).........      124,056       75,674
Colorado:
    1.................  D. DeGette (D)........       97,017       50,449
    2.................  D. Skaggs (D).........      137,236       71,363
    3.................  S. McInnis (R)........      123,228       64,079
    4.................  B. Schaffer (R).......      137,667       71,587
    5.................  J. Hefley (R).........      147,008       76,444
    6.................  D. Schaefer (R).......      142,118       73,901
Connecticut:
    1.................  B. Kennelly (D).......      105,416       62,195
    2.................  S. Gejdenson (D)......      116,249       68,587
    3.................  R. DeLauro (D)........      107,728       63,560
    4.................  C. Shays (R)..........      107,593       63,480
    5.................  J. Maloney (D)........      121,727       71,819
    6.................  N. Johnson (R)........      117,467       69,305
Delaware:
    Single district...  M. Castle (R).........      148,092       96,260
District of Columbia:
    Delegate..........  E. Holmes-Norton (D)..       55,515       34,364
Florida:
    1.................  J. Scarborough (R)....      105,015       51,457
    2.................  A. Boyd (D)...........      102,603       50,276
    3.................  C. Brown (D)..........       97,342       47,697
    4.................  T. Fowler (R).........      107,207       52,532
    5.................  K. Thurman (D)........       77,566       38,008
    6.................  C. Stearns (R)........      108,084       52,961
    7.................  J. Mica (R)...........      108,150       52,994
    8.................  B. McCollum (R).......      104,862       51,382
    9.................  M. Bilirakis (R)......       96,634       47,350
    10................  B. Young (R)..........       77,829       38,136
    11................  J. Davis (D)..........       95,193       46,645
    12................  C. Canady (R).........      106,550       52,209
    13................  D. Miller (R).........       77,939       38,190
    14................  P. Goss (R)...........       84,034       41,177
    15................  D. Weldon (R).........       99,600       48,804
    16................  M. Foley (R)..........       94,711       46,408
    17................  C. Meek (D)...........      102,516       50,233
    18................  I. Ros-Lehtinen (R)...       82,718       40,532
    19................  R. Wexler (D).........       88,791       43,508
    20................  P. Deutsch (D)........      105,673       51,780
    21................  L. Diaz-Balart (R)....      111,395       54,583
    22................  C. Shaw (R)...........       58,339       28,586
    23................  A. Hastings (D).......       99,819       48,911
Georgia:
    1.................  J. Kingston (R).......      122,289       72,151
    2.................  S. Bishop (D).........      104,436       61,617
    3.................  M. Collins (R)........      139,461       82,282
    4.................  C. McKinney (D).......      129,267       76,268
    5.................  J. Lewis (D)..........       94,173       55,562
    6.................  N. Gingrich (R).......      140,511       82,901
    7.................  B. Barr (R)...........      130,930       77,249
    8.................  S. Chambliss (R)......      125,811       74,228
    9.................  N. Deal (D)...........      126,757       74,786
    10................  C. Norwood (R)........      125,162       73,845
    11................  J. Linder (R).........      123,877       73,087
Hawaii:
    1.................  N. Abercrombie (D)....       85,883       53,247
    2.................  P. Mink (D)...........      105,297       65,284
Idaho:
    1.................  H. Chenoweth (R)......      111,901       53,713
    2.................  M. Crapo (R)..........      134,379       64,502
Illinois:
    1.................  B. Rush (D)...........       96,817       61,963
    2.................  J. Jackson (D)........      122,876       78,641
    3.................  W. Lipinski (D).......      120,353       77,026
    4.................  L. Gutierrez (D)......      128,044       81,948
    5.................  R. Blagojevich (D)....       92,506       59,204
    6.................  H. Hyde (R)...........      130,909       83,782
    7.................  D. Davis (D)..........       90,865       58,154
    8.................  P. Crane (R)..........      146,021       93,453
    9.................  S. Yates (D)..........       86,834       55,574
    10................  J. Porter (R).........      138,134       88,406
    11................  J. Weller (R).........      136,665       87,466
    12................  J. Costello (D).......      113,207       72,452
    13................  H. Fawell (R).........      155,443       99,483
    14................  D. Hastert (R)........      150,405       96,259
    15................  T. Ewing (R)..........      116,361       74,471
    16................  D. Manzullo (R).......      140,412       89,864
    17................  L. Evans (D)..........      118,541       75,866
    18................  R. LaHood (R).........      127,725       81,744
    19................  G. Poshard (D)........      113,300       72,512
    20................  J. Shimkus (R)........      123,317       78,923
Indiana:
    1.................  P. Visclosky (D)......      111,638       61,401
    2.................  D. McIntosh (R).......      103,673       57,020
    3.................  T. Roemer (D).........      115,806       63,693
    4.................  M. Souder (R).........      127,521       70,137
    5.................  S. Buyer (R)..........      118,667       65,267
    6.................  D. Burton (R).........      125,156       68,836
    7.................  E. Pease (R)..........      108,033       59,418
    8.................  J. Hostettler (R).....      101,105       55,608
    9.................  L. Hamilton (D).......      116,673       64,170
    10................  J. Carson (D).........       98,097       53,953
Iowa:
    1.................  J. Leach (R)..........      134,186       85,879
    2.................  J. Nussle (R).........      136,633       87,445
    3.................  L. Boswell (D)........      127,263       81,449
    4.................  G. Ganske (R).........      135,757       86,884
    5.................  T. Latham (R).........      140,138       89,688
Kansas:
    1.................  J. Moran (R)..........      144,997       82,649
    2.................  J. Ryun (R)...........      137,921       78,615
    3.................  V. Snowbarger (R).....      148,361       84,566
    4.................  T. Tiahrt (R).........      148,709       84,764
Kentucky:
    1.................  E. Whitfield (R)......      108,223       53,029
    2.................  R. Lewis (R)..........      122,191       59,874
    3.................  A. Northup (R)........      106,786       52,325
    4.................  J. Bunning (R)........      106,793       52,329
    5.................  H. Rogers (R).........      122,476       60,013
    6.................  S. Baesler (D)........       95,828       46,956
Louisiana:
    1.................  B. Livingston (R).....      108,873       57,703
    2.................  W. Jefferson (D)......       83,892       44,463
    3.................  B. Tauzin (R).........      114,456       60,662
    4.................  J. McCrery (R)........       81,386       43,135
    5.................  J. Cooksey (R)........      103,361       54,782
    6.................  R. Baker (R)..........      111,951       59,334
    7.................  C. John (D)...........      111,808       59,258
Maine:
    1.................  T. Allen (D)..........       98,056       49,028
    2.................  J. Baldacci (D).......       87,165       43,582
Maryland:
    1.................  W. Gilchrest (R)......      122,453       67,349
    2.................  R. Ehrlich (R)........      126,439       69,541
    3.................  B. Cardin (D).........      116,874       64,281
    4.................  A. Wynn (D)...........      132,915       73,103
    5.................  S. Hoyer (D)..........      135,008       74,254
    6.................  R. Bartlett (R).......      132,118       72,665
    7.................  E. Cummings (D).......       98,541       54,197
    8.................  C. Morella (R)........      132,018       72,610
Massachusetts:
    1.................  J. Olver (D)..........      120,136       78,088
    2.................  R. Neal (D)...........      126,714       82,364
    3.................  J. McGovern (D).......      124,290       80,789
    4.................  B. Frank (D)..........      123,852       80,504
    5.................  M. Meehan (D).........      131,445       85,439
    6.................  J. Tierney (D)........      119,674       77,788
    7.................  E. Markey (D).........      104,556       67,961
    8.................  J. Kennedy (D)........       76,744       49,883
    9.................  J. Moakley (D)........      109,865       71,412
    10................  W. Delahunt (D).......      121,290       78,838
Michigan:
    1.................  B. Stupak (D).........      119,337       71,602
    2.................  P. Hoekstra (R).......      134,397       80,638
    3.................  V. Ehlers (R).........      136,876       82,125
    4.................  D. Camp (R)...........      119,719       71,831
    5.................  J. Barcia (D).........      121,053       72,632
    6.................  F. Upton (R)..........      118,194       70,916
    7.................  N. Smith (R)..........      124,675       74,805
    8.................  D. Stabenow (D).......      124,294       74,576
    9.................  D. Kildee (D).........      119,337       71,602
    10................  D. Bonior (D).........      127,725       76,635
    11................  J. Knollenberg (R)....      125,438       75,263
    12................  S. Levin (D)..........      120,862       72,517
    13................  L. Rivers (D).........      116,668       70,001
    14................  J. Conyers (D)........      101,418       60,851
    15................  C. Kilpatrick (D).....       74,348       44,609
    16................  J. Dingell (D)........      122,006       73,204
Minnesota:
    1.................  G. Gutknecht (R)......      140,016       74,208
    2.................  D. Minge (D)..........      146,786       77,796
    3.................  J. Ramstad (R)........      149,042       78,992
    4.................  B. Vento (D)..........      120,351       63,786
    5.................  M. Sabo (D)...........       90,263       47,840
    6.................  B. Luther (D).........      162,582       86,168
    7.................  C. Peterson (D).......      134,321       71,190
    8.................  J. Oberstar (D).......      131,204       69,538
Mississippi:
    1.................  R. Wicker (R).........      103,157       71,178
    2.................  B. Thompson (D).......       83,724       57,770
    3.................  C. Pickering (R)......      100,691       69,477
    4.................  M. Parker (R).........       93,730       64,674
    5.................  G. Taylor (D).........      102,093       70,444
Missouri
    1.................  B. Clay (D)...........      132,587       67,619
    2.................  J. Talent (R).........      178,713       91,144
    3.................  R. Gephardt (D).......      157,259       80,202
    4.................  I. Skelton (D)........      155,542       79,327
    5.................  K. McCarthy (D).......      140,310       71,558
    6.................  P. Danner (D).........      160,906       82,062
    7.................  R. Blunt (R)..........      143,957       73,418
    8.................  J. Emerson (R)........      135,161       68,932
    9.................  K. Hulshof (R)........      163,266       83,266
Montana: Single         R. Hill (R)...........      167,712       90,564
 district.
Nebraska:
    1.................  D. Bereuter (R).......      114,111       68,466
    2.................  J. Christensen (R)....      121,139       72,684
    3.................  B. Barrett (R)........      116,184       69,710
Nevada:
    1.................  J. Ensign (R).........      151,025       57,389
    2.................  J. Gibbons (R)........      168,267       63,941
New Hampshire:
    1.................  J. Sununu (R).........      115,308       64,572
    2.................  C. Bass (R)...........      116,934       65,483
New Jersey:
    1.................  R. Andrews (D)........      117,947       75,486
    2.................  F. LoBiondo (R).......      108,200       69,248
    3.................  J. Saxton (R).........      119,218       76,300
    4.................  C. Smith (R)..........      113,568       72,684
    5.................  M. Roukema (R)........      121,478       77,746
    6.................  F. Pallone (D)........      104,669       66,988
    7.................  B. Franks (R).........      108,200       69,248
    8.................  W. Pascrell (D).......      102,127       65,361
    9.................  S. Rothman (D)........       92,521       59,214
    10................  D. Payne (D)..........       96,900       62,016
    11................  R. Frelinghuysen (R)..      117,665       75,305
    12................  M. Pappas (R).........      119,360       76,390
    13................  R. Menendez (D).......       90,685       58,038
New Mexico:
    1.................  H. Wilson (R).........      111,873       60,411

[[Page 704]]

    2.................  J. Skeen (R)..........      110,860       59,864
    3.................  B. Redmond (R)........      114,946       62,071
                  New
                   Yor
                   k:.
    1.................  M. Forbes (R).........      126,450       88,515
    2.................  R. Lazio (R)..........      121,392       84,975
    3.................  P. King (R)...........      111,909       78,336
    4.................  C. McCarthy (D).......      112,225       78,557
    5.................  G. Ackerman (D).......      103,373       72,361
    6.................  G. Meeks (D)..........      113,173       79,221
    7.................  T. Manton (D).........       81,561       57,092
    8.................  J. Nadler (D).........       62,593       43,815
    9.................  C. Schumer (D)........       90,096       63,067
    10................  E. Towns (D)..........       88,199       61,739
    11................  M. Owens (D)..........      107,167       75,017
    12................  N. Velazquez (D)......       84,406       59,084
    13................  V. Fossella (R).......      104,322       73,025
    14................  C. Maloney (D)........       51,529       36,070
    15................  C. Rangel (D).........       68,283       47,798
    16................  J. Serrano (D)........       80,612       56,428
    17................  E. Engel (D)..........       92,309       64,616
    18................  N. Lowey (D)..........       96,102       67,272
    19................  S. Kelly (R)..........      117,915       82,540
    20................  B. Gilman (R).........      124,238       86,966
    21................  M. McNulty (D)........      102,425       71,697
    22................  G. Solomon (R)........      121,709       85,196
    23................  S. Boehlert (R).......      110,960       77,672
    24................  J. McHugh (R).........      117,283       82,098
    25................  J. Walsh (R)..........      115,070       80,549
    26................  M. Hinchey (D)........      104,322       73,025
    27................  B. Paxon (R)..........      123,289       86,302
    28................  L. Slaughter (D)......      105,586       73,910
    29................  J. LaFalce (D)........      107,167       75,017
    30................  J. Quinn (R)..........      102,425       71,697
    31................  A. Houghton (R).......      113,489       79,442
North Carolina
    1.................  E. Clayton (D)........       95,341       48,624
    2.................  B. Etheridge (D)......      108,085       55,123
    3.................  W. Jones (R)..........      110,897       56,557
    4.................  D. Price (D)..........      108,506       55,338
    5.................  R. Burr (R)...........      103,406       52,737
    6.................  H. Coble (R)..........      110,594       56,403
    7.................  M. McIntyre (D).......      107,856       55,006
    8.................  B. Hefner (D).........      120,546       61,479
    9.................  S. Myrick (R).........      118,039       60,200
    10................  C. Ballenger (R)......      114,700       58,497
    11................  C. Taylor (R).........       97,202       49,573
    12................  M. Watt (D)...........      102,001       52,021
North Dakota: Single    E. Pomeroy (D)........      131,864       89,667
 district.
Ohio:
    1.................  S. Chabot (R).........      108,478       55,324
    2.................  R. Portman (R)........      134,306       68,496
    3.................  T. Hall (D)...........      111,622       56,927
    4.................  M. Oxley (R)..........      127,343       64,945
    5.................  P. Gillmore (R).......      138,573       70,672
    6.................  T. Strickland (D).....      107,579       54,865
    7.................  D. Hobson (R).........      123,525       62,998
    8.................  J. Boehner (R)........      132,958       67,809
    9.................  M. Kaptur (D).........      118,135       60,249
    10................  D. Kucinich (D).......      110,948       56,583
    11................  L. Stokes (D).........       94,777       48,337
    12................  J. Kasich (R).........      119,932       61,165
    13................  S. Brown (D)..........      135,204       68,954
    14................  T. Sawyer (D).........      109,600       55,896
    15................  D. Pryce (R)..........      109,600       55,896
    16................  R. Regula (R).........      121,279       61,852
    17................  J. Traficant (D)......      109,151       55,667
    18................  B. Ney (R)............      113,868       58,073
    19................  S. LaTourette (R).....      119,258       60,822
Oklahoma:
    1.................  S. Largent (R)........      103,052       50,495
    2.................  T. Coburn (R).........       97,609       47,828
    3.................  W. Watkins (R)........       89,236       43,726
    4.................  J. C. Watts (R).......      106,521       52,195
    5.................  E. Istook (R).........      104,069       50,994
    6.................  F. Lucas (R)..........       97,669       47,858
Oregon:
    1.................  E. Furse (D)..........      117,445       66,944
    2.................  R. Smith (R)..........      109,222       62,256
    3.................  E. Blumenauer (D).....      105,138       59,929
    4.................  P. DeFazio (D)........      105,910       60,369
    5.................  D. Hooley (D).........      114,189       65,088
Pennsylvania:
    1.................  R. Brady (D)..........       86,253       49,164
    2.................  C. Fattah (D).........       83,100       47,367
    3.................  R. Borski (D).........      103,594       59,049
    4.................  R. Klink (D)..........      108,323       61,744
    5.................  J. Peterson (R).......      105,396       60,076
    6.................  T. Holden (D).........      108,999       62,129
    7.................  C. Weldon (R).........      112,377       64,055
    8.................  J. Greenwood (R)......      131,745       75,094
    9.................  B. Shuster (R)........      111,927       63,798
    10................  J. McDade (R).........      111,251       63,413
    11................  P. Kanjorski (D)......      102,018       58,150
    12................  J. Murtha (D).........      102,693       58,535
    13................  J. Fox (R)............      116,656       66,494
    14................  W. Coyne (D)..........       84,452       48,137
    15................  P. McHale (D).........      112,602       64,183
    16................  J. Pitts (R)..........      127,466       72,655
    17................  G. Gekas (R)..........      117,782       67,136
    18................  M. Doyle (D)..........       97,514       55,583
    19................  W. Goodling (R).......      117,332       66,879
    20................  F. Mascara (D)........      100,892       57,508
    21................  P. English (R)........      109,675       62,515
Rhode Island:
    1.................  P. Kennedy (D)........       79,820       51,883
    2.................  R. Weygand (D)........       83,345       54,174
South Carolina:
    1.................  M. Sanford (R)........      115,317       66,884
    2.................  F. Spence (R).........      112,748       65,394
    3.................  L. Graham (R).........      109,390       63,446
    4.................  B. Inglis (R).........      110,114       63,866
    5.................  J. Spratt (D).........      112,814       65,432
    6.................  J. Clyburn (D)........       98,194       56,952
South Dakota Single     J. Thune (R)..........      140,376       70,188
 district.
Tennessee:
    1.................  W. Jenkins (R)........       96,498       52,109
    2.................  J. Duncan (R).........      101,581       54,854
    3.................  Z. Wamp (R)...........      104,267       56,304
    4.................  V. Hilleary (R).......      104,555       56,460
    5.................  B. Clement (D)........      100,143       54,077
    6.................  B. Gordon (D).........      125,082       67,544
    7.................  E. Bryant (R).........      124,123       67,026
    8.................  J. Tanner (D).........      108,871       58,791
    9.................  H. Ford (D)...........       94,004       50,762
Texas:
    1.................  M. Sandlin (D)........      109,450       54,725
    2.................  J. Turner (D).........      111,250       55,625
    3.................  S. Johnson (R)........      137,172       68,586
    4.................  R. Hall (D)...........      124,931       62,466
    5.................  P. Sessions (R).......      109,090       54,545
    6.................  J. Barton (R).........      143,653       71,826
    7.................  B. Archer (R).........      140,772       70,386
    8.................  K. Brady (R)..........      140,412       70,206
    9.................  N. Lampson (D)........      119,891       59,945
    10................  L. Doggett (D)........      107,650       53,825
    11................  C. Edwards (D)........      114,850       57,425
    12................  K. Granger (R)........      121,331       60,665
    13................  W. Thornberry (R).....      110,890       55,445
    14................  R. Paul (R)...........      117,730       58,865
    15................  R. Hinojosa (D).......      101,169       50,584
    16................  S. Reyes (D)..........      114,490       57,245
    17................  C. Stenholm (D).......      114,130       57,065
    18................  S. Lee (D)............       96,128       48,064
    19................  L. Combest (D)........      130,332       65,166
    20................  H. Gonzalez (D).......      107,650       53,825
    21................  L. Smith (R)..........      125,651       62,826
    22................  T. DeLay (R)..........      142,573       71,286
    23................  H. Bonilla (R)........      118,090       59,045
    24................  M. Frost (D)..........      132,852       66,426
    25................  K. Bentsen (D)........      128,891       64,446
    26................  R. Armey (R)..........      132,132       66,066
    27................  S. Ortiz (D)..........      109,810       54,905
    28................  C. Rodriguez (D)......      113,770       56,885
    29................  G. Green (D)..........      118,090       59,045
    30................  E. Johnson (D)........      106,209       53,105
Utah:
    1.................  J. Hansen (R).........      180,375      101,010
    2.................  M. Cook (R)...........      166,456       93,215
    3.................  C. Cannon (R).........      174,484       97,711
Vermont: Single         B. Sanders (I)........      114,170       58,227
 district.
Virginia:
    1.................  H. Bateman (R)........      105,583       55,959
    2.................  O. Pickett (D)........      103,453       54,830
    3.................  R. Scott (D)..........       80,333       42,576
    4.................  N. Sisisky (D)........      101,961       54,039
    5.................  V. Goode (D)..........       87,791       46,529
    6.................  B. Goodlatte (R)......       87,045       46,134
    7.................  T. Bliley (R).........      106,223       56,298
    8.................  J. Moran (D)..........       83,103       44,045
    9.................  R. Boucher (D)........       81,718       43,311
    10................  F. Wolf (R)...........      116,770       61,888
    11................  T. Davis (R)..........      111,017       58,839
Washington:
    1.................  R. White (R)..........      135,518       77,245
    2.................  J. Metcalf (R)........      131,200       74,784
    3.................  L. Smith (R)..........      128,543       73,269
    4.................  D. Hastings (R).......      125,111       71,313
    5.................  G. Nethercutt (R).....      118,578       67,590
    6.................  N. Dicks (D)..........      121,236       69,104
    7.................  J. McDermott (D)......       79,606       45,375
    8.................  J. Dunn (R)...........      145,372       82,862
    9.................  A. Smith (D)..........      126,993       72,386
West Virginia:
    1.................  A. Mollohan (D).......       75,146       37,573
    2.................  B. Wise (D)...........       78,123       39,062
    3.................  N. Rahall (D).........       70,579       35,290
Wisconsin:
    1.................  M. Neumann (R)........      123,637       74,182
    2.................  S. Klug (R)...........      117,215       70,329
    3.................  R. Kind (D)...........      122,113       73,268
    4.................  G. Kleczka (D)........      119,686       71,812
    5.................  T. Barrett (D)........       93,816       56,290
    6.................  T. Petri (R)..........      126,575       75,945
    7.................  D. Obey (D)...........      124,616       74,770
    8.................  J. Johnson (D)........      126,466       75,880
    9.................  J. Sensenbrenner (R)..      138,982       83,389
Wyoming: Single         B. Cubin (R)..........      105,143       55,726
 district.
                                               -------------------------
    United States.....  ......................   48,464,580   30,048,040
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This figure was obtained by multiplying the number of children
  considered eligible to use the prepaid tuitions by the state
  percentage of high school graduates who attend college. This study
  does not attempt to predict the increase in number of children who
  would attend college as a result of the prepaid tuition plans.
\2\ All data were taken from the 1997 March Current Population Survey
  and other Bureau of the Census tabulations.
 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau and tabulations by The Heritage Foundation.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of eligible
                                                  children in families
                                                with income over 125% of
                                                      poverty level
                     State                     -------------------------
                                                              Number who
                                                              are likely
                                                   Total      to attend
                                                               college
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................................      769,479      492,466
Alaska........................................      192,307       71,154
Arizona.......................................      821,835      410,918
Arkansas......................................      500,442      240,212
California....................................    5,935,685    3,620,768
Colorado......................................      784,294      407,833
Connecticut...................................      676,262      398,994
Delaware......................................      148,092       96,260
District of Columbia..........................       55,515       34,419
Florida.......................................    2,192,380    1,074,266
Georgia.......................................    1,362,858      804,086
Hawaii........................................      188,381      116,796
Idaho.........................................      244,326      117,277
Illinois......................................    2,449,191    1,567,482
Indiana.......................................    1,126,515      619,583
Iowa..........................................      674,064      431,401
Kansas........................................      579,989      330,594
Kentucky......................................      664,549      325,629
Louisiana.....................................      715,800      379,374
Maine.........................................      185,220       92,610
Maryland......................................      996,365      548,001
Massachusetts.................................    1,154,041      750,127
Michigan......................................    1,906,347    1,143,808
Minnesota.....................................    1,074,564      569,519
Mississippi...................................      483,396      333,543
Missouri......................................    1,072,706      547,080
Montana.......................................      167,712       90,564
Nebraska......................................      351,434      210,860
Nevada........................................      319,292      121,331
New Hampshire.................................      232,242      130,055
New Jersey....................................    1,412,539      904,025
New Mexico....................................      337,678      182,346
New York......................................    3,161,260    2,212,882
North Carolina................................    1,297,173      661,558
North Dakota..................................      131,864       89,667
Ohio..........................................    2,245,912    1,145,415
Oklahoma......................................      598,095      293,067
Oregon........................................      551,904      314,586
Pennsylvania..................................    2,252,045    1,283,666
Rhode Island..................................      163,165      106,057
South Carolina................................      658,577      381,975
South Dakota..................................      140,376       70,188
Tennessee.....................................      959,220      517,979
Texas.........................................    3,600,318    1,800,159
Utah..........................................      521,315      291,936
Vermont.......................................      114,170       58,227
Virginia......................................    1,065,424      564,675
Washington....................................    1,107,174      631,089
West Virginia.................................      223,849      111,924
Wisconsin.....................................    1,088,351      653,011
Wyoming.......................................      105,143       55,726
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Sessions and 
other colleagues in launching an initiative to increase Americans' 
access to college education. Today, we are introducing the Collegiate 
Learning and Student Savings Act. This bill would extend tax-free 
treatment to all state sponsored prepaid tuition plans and state 
savings plans in the year 2000.

[[Page 705]]

This legislation would also give prepaid tuition plans established by 
private colleges and universities tax-deferred treatment in 2000, and 
tax-exempt status by 2004.
  Prepaid college tuition and savings programs have flourished at the 
state level in the face of spiraling college costs. According to the 
College Board, between 1980 and 1997, tuition at public colleges 
increased by 107 percent, while the median income increased just 12 
percent. The cause of this dramatic increase in tuition is the subject 
of significant debate. But whether these increases are attributable to 
increased costs to the universities, reductions in state funding for 
public universities, or the increased value of a college degree, the 
fact remains that financing a college education has become increasingly 
difficult.
  Although the federal government has increased its aid to college 
students over the years, it is the states who have engineered 
innovative ways to help its families afford college. Michigan 
implemented the first prepaid tuition plan in 1986. Florida followed in 
1988. today 43 states have either implemented or are in the process of 
implementing prepaid tuition plans or state savings plans.
  Mr. President, prepaid college tuition plans allow parents to pay 
prospectively for their children's higher education at participating 
universities. States pool these funds and invest them in a manner that 
will match or exceed the pace of educational inflation. This ``locks 
in'' current tuition and guarantees financial access to a future 
college education. Congress has already acted to ensure that tax on 
distributions from state sponsored programs are tax-deferred.
  Senator Sessions and I believe the 106th Congress must move to make 
state programs 100 percent tax free. Students should be able to enroll 
in college without fear of then having to pay taxes on the money 
accrued. The legislation would extend the same treatment to private 
college prepaid programs in 2004.
  We believe that these programs should be tax free for numerous 
reasons. First, for most families, they have in essence purchased a 
service to be provided in the future. The accounts are not liquid. The 
funds are transferred from the state directly to the college or 
university. Under current policy, the student is required to find other 
means of generating the funds to pay the tax. Second, Congress should 
make these programs tax free in order to encourage savings and college 
attendance.
  Perhaps most importantly, prepaid tuition and savings programs help 
middle income families afford a college education. Florida's experience 
shows that it is not higher income families who take most advantage of 
these plans. It is middle income families who want the discipline of 
monthly payments. They know that they would have a difficult time 
coming up with funds necessary to pay for college if they waited until 
their child enrolled. In Florida, more than 70 percent of participants 
in the state tuition program have family incomes of less than $50,000.
  I am pleased to have this opportunity to join my colleagues in 
support of good tax policies which enhance our higher education goals. 
Prepaid tuition plans deserve our support through enactment of 
legislation that would make them tax-free for American families and 
students.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 14. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the use of education individual retirement accounts, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                 education savings account act of 1999

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Education 
Savings Account Act of 1999.
  Under this bill, parents will have more control over their children's 
education through IRA-style savings accounts that allow parents to save 
money tax-free for elementary and secondary education expenses. This 
legislation allows parents, grandparents, or scholarship sponsors to 
contribute up to $2,000 (post-tax dollars) a year per child for 
educational expenses while at public, private, religious or home 
schools--from kindergarten through high school. The accumulated 
interest in the savings accounts is tax-free if used for the child's 
education.
  Just consider the benefits of these innovative education savings 
accounts: if a parent placed $2,000 each year in an education savings 
account beginning in the year of a child's birth, then assuming a 7.5% 
interest rate, $14,488 would be available by the first grade, $36,847 
by the time the child starts junior high school, and $46,732 when the 
child starts high school.
  For a child attending public school, this money could be used for 
after-school tutoring, car pooling or other transportation costs, 
school uniforms, or for a home computer. The Joint Committee on 
Taxation estimates that 75% of all families using these accounts--10.8 
million families--will use them to support children in public schools.
  These savings accounts give parents the power to obtain the necessary 
tools to overcome current obstacles to obtaining a quality education 
for their children.
  This legislation is modeled on the Education Savings Accounts that 
were established for college as part of the bipartisan Taxpayer Relief 
Act of 1997. Last year, a similar version of this bill passed both the 
House and the Senate but was vetoed by President Clinton.
  I am confident that because this is an idea that benefits millions of 
working American families, President Clinton will put aside his 
differences and join us in our effort this Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin, 
        Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Breaux, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Reed, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. 
        Wellstone, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mrs. Feinstein).
  S. 17. A bill to increase the availability, affordability, and 
quality of child care; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.


 child care a.c.c.e.s.s. act (Affordable Child Care for Early Success 
                             and Security)

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Care 
A.C.C.E.S.S. (Affordable Child Care for Early Success and Security) 
Act, legislation designed to improve the quality, affordability and 
accessibility of child care in America.
  Any member who spent time in his or her state over the past two 
months enters the 106th Congress knowing with certainty that no issue 
weighs more heavily on the minds of parents in this country than how 
their children are cared for.
  Parents worry that they can't afford to take time away from work to 
be with their children. When they must work, they worry that the child 
care they need will be unavailable, unaffordable or unsafe. It's a 
constant, daily struggle.
  The challenge before us is straightforward: to do a better job of 
supporting families in the choices they make about the care of their 
children.
  Providing support for families' choices does not require inventing a 
slew of new programs. We have programs already in existence that work 
and that enjoy bipartisan support. Our goal should be to build on the 
foundation we've already laid with programs like the Child Care and 
Development Block Grant, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, and 
with targeted tax credits that help working families defray the costs 
of raising children.
  But, providing real support does require making sure that adequate 
resources are there when families need them. And that's where we're 
falling short.
  Mr. President, this is the reality in communities across the country:
  Because of a lack of funding, the Child Care and Development Block

[[Page 706]]

Grant serve only 1 out of 10 eligible children. In two-thirds of our 
states, families earning $25,000 make too much to be eligible for any 
assistance through the block grant. Ironically, these same families 
earn too little and have too little tax liability to take full 
advantage of the non-refundable Dependent Care Tax Credit. What kind of 
choices do those families have when full-day child care costs $4,000 to 
$10,000 per year--equal to the cost of college tuition plus room and 
board at many public universities?
  Many parents are dismayed to learn that some kinds of care are 
unavailable at any cost. For example, care for infants is virtually 
non-existent in many communities. And the problem is only getting 
worse. The GAO estimates that by the time the 50 percent welfare to 
work participation goal is reached in 2002, 88 percent of parents with 
infants needing child care will not be able to find it. This 
corresponds to 24,000 young children, in the city of Chicago alone, 
without child care. What choices will those parents have?
  We know conclusively that the experiences in the first months and 
years of children's lives play a significant role in shaping their 
future. Many parents would prefer to be able to stay home with their 
children during that critical time, but are unable to shoulder the 
financial burden of losing an income. What choices are we offering 
those families?
  Options are also limited for parents of school-age children. Five 
million children go unsupervised each day between the hours of 3 and 6 
pm. Not coincidentally, these are the hours when juvenile crime peaks 
and when children are at an increased risk of being victims of crimes 
themselves. We also know that eighth-graders left home alone after 
school report greater use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana than 
those who are in adult-supervised settings. What kind of choices do 
parents have when more than half of schools offer no afterschool 
programs?
  Even when families can find affordable care, they still must worry 
about whether that care will be safe. Studies have found that only one 
in seven child care centers provides care that promotes healthy 
development. Child care at one in eight centers actually threatens 
children's health and safety. And infants and toddlers--our youngest 
and most vulnerable children--fare the worst. Almost half of infant and 
toddler care endangers health and safety. What kind of choices are we 
offering parents who must work but want their children to be in safe 
and loving environments?
  I know that some will argue that child care is a private problem and 
one that families should be left to solve on their own. If so, then we 
would be treating child care very differently than we do other 
essential children's needs, like education and health care.
  For example, we don't expect families to bear the financial costs of 
educating their children alone. In addition to providing public 
elementary and secondary schools, we pick up three-quarters of the 
costs of educating a student at a public university.
  And we don't expect families to shoulder the burden of providing 
health care for their children alone. Two-thirds of families have that 
expense subsidized through their employers or through public programs 
such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
  We as a nation have an interest in well-educated and healthy 
children. And so, we accept that the federal government, states and 
employers play a role in getting us to these laudable goals--of public 
education and health.
  I believe that there is just as compelling a national interest in 
making sure our children are safe and well-cared for. That is why I 
rise today to offer a plan that will broadly improve the ability of 
families to make better choices when it comes to our children's care.
  There are seven main parts to our initiative:
  First, our bill would provide an additional $7.5 billion over 5 years 
through the Child Care and Development Block Grant to increase the 
amount of child care subsidies available to working families. This 
investment will double the number of children served by the block grant 
to 2 million by 2004.
  Second, this legislation will provide $2 billion over 5 years to 
encourage states to invest in activities known to produce significant 
improvements in the quality of child care. For example, we will help 
states to: bring provider-child ratios to nationally recommended 
levels; improve the enforcement of quality standards by conducting 
unannounced inspections; conduct background checks on child care 
providers; improve the compensation, education and training of child 
care providers; educate parents how to find good quality child care; 
and ensure that high quality child care is available to children with 
disabilities.
  In addition, this bill would involve communities in improving the 
quality of early childhood development by providing $2.5 billion over 5 
years in grants to local collaboratives to strengthen services for 
young children. The bill would also encourage dedicated child care 
providers to stay in the profession by helping with the repayment of 
educational loans.
  This initiative would provide $2 billion over 5 years to increase the 
supply and quality of school-age care through the Child Care and 
Development Block Grant. In addition, we would encourage more schools 
to keep their doors open beyond the regular school day by expanding the 
21st Century Community Learning Centers program to $600 million in FY 
2000.
  This bill would also expand the existing Dependent Care Tax Credit 
for families earning under $60,000 and index the credit for inflation 
to help it keep pace with rising child care costs. We would also make 
the credit refundable so that families with little or no tax liability 
(those making under $30,000) can receive assistance with child care 
expenses.
  This legislation would also provide new assistance for families who 
make the difficult choice to forgo a second income or career and to 
stay at home with their children. Stay-at-home parents with children 
under the age of 1 could claim up to $540 through an expansion of the 
existing Dependent Care Tax Credit. This new credit would also be made 
refundable--to allow stay-at-home parents earning under $30,000 to 
benefit.
  This bill would create a new discretionary program of competitive 
``challenge grants'' in which communities who generate funds from the 
private sector would be eligible for matched federal grants to improve 
the availability and quality of child care on a community-wide basis. 
This program would be authorized at $400 million over 5 years. We would 
provide a new tax incentive to open high quality, on-site child care 
centers or to assist their employees in finding and paying for child 
care off-site.
  Finally, we would also ensure that the federal government leads by 
example in providing its workers only the highest quality child care. 
Many people would be surprised to hear that federal child care 
facilities are currently exempted from state quality regulations. In 
this bill we require that all federal child care centers meet all state 
licensing standards.
  Mr. President, this is a comprehensive package--it is a bold agenda--
but it is not pie in the sky. We can and must do this for America's 
families.
  I was disappointed, but not disheartened, about the lack of progress 
made on this front last year, when I introduced similar legislation. 
But I know that all good things take time. I fought for more than 3 
years to see the enactment of the original Child Care and Development 
Block Grant and 8 years to see the signing of the Family and Medical 
Leave Act.
  But, I'm not looking to set any new endurance records with this 
legislation. I am hopeful that this year, we can work together again to 
give families the resources they need to better care for their 
children.
  Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that a summary of this 
bill be printed in the Record. I would also ask unanimous consent that 
letters of support from the Children's Defense Fund and the National 
Women's Law Center be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page 707]]



                                 S. 17

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Child Care 
     ACCESS (Affordable Child Care for Early Success and Security) 
     Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.

           TITLE I--IMPROVING THE AFFORDABILITY OF CHILD CARE

Sec. 101. Increased appropriations for child care grants.

   TITLE II--ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF CHILD CARE AND EARLY CHILDHOOD 
                              DEVELOPMENT

                         Subtitle A--Child Care

Sec. 201. Grants to improve the quality of child care.

             Subtitle B--Young Child Assistance Activities

Sec. 211. Definitions.
Sec. 212. Allotments to States.
Sec. 213. Grants to local collaboratives.
Sec. 214. Supplement not supplant.
Sec. 215. Authorization of appropriations.

         Subtitle C--Loan Cancellation for Child Care Providers

Sec. 221. Loan cancellation.

 TITLE III--EXPANDING THE AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILD 
                                  CARE

Sec. 301. Appropriations for after-school care.
Sec. 302. Amendments to the 21st Century Community Learning Centers 
              Act.

           TITLE IV--SUPPORTING FAMILY CHOICES IN CHILD CARE

Sec. 401. Expanding the dependent care tax credit.
Sec. 402. Minimum credit allowed for stay-at-home parents.
Sec. 403. Credit made refundable.

            TITLE V--ENCOURAGING PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT

Sec. 501. Allowance of credit for employer expenses for child care 
              assistance.
Sec. 502. Grants to support public-private partnerships.

               TITLE VI--CHILD CARE IN FEDERAL FACILITIES

Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Providing quality child care in Federal facilities.
Sec. 603. Child care services for Federal employees.
Sec. 604. Miscellaneous provisions relating to child care provided by 
              Federal agencies.
Sec. 605. Requirement to provide lactation support in new Federal child 
              care facilities.
Sec. 606. Federal child care evaluation.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Each day an estimated 13,000,000 children spend some 
     part of their day in child care.
       (2) Fifty-four percent of mothers with children between the 
     ages of 0-3 are in the work force. Labor force participation 
     rises to 63 percent for mothers with children under the age 
     of 6 and to 78 percent for mothers with children ages 6-17.
       (3) The availability of child care that is reliable, 
     convenient, and affordable helps parents to reach and 
     maintain self-sufficiency and is essential to making the 
     transition from welfare to work.
       (4) Only an estimated 1 out of 10 eligible families receive 
     assistance in paying for child care through the Child Care 
     and Development Block Grant Act of 1990.
       (5) Full-day child care can cost $4,000 to $9,000 a year.
       (6) In many instances, high quality child care services 
     cost little more than mediocre services. An investment of 
     only an additional 10 percent has been found to have a 
     significant impact on quality.
       (7) Only 1 in 7 child care centers provides care that 
     promotes healthy development. Child care at 1 in 8 centers 
     actually threatens children's health and safety.
       (8) The education, training, and salary of a child care 
     provider make the difference between poor and good quality 
     child care.
       (A) The average salary of a child care provider in a center 
     is only $12,058 a year, which is approximately equal to the 
     poverty level for a family of 3.
       (B) Home-based providers earn $9,000 a year on average.
       (9) Poor compensation and limited opportunities for 
     professional training and education contribute to high 
     turnover among child care providers, which disrupts the 
     creation of strong provider-child relationships that are 
     critical to children's healthy development.
       (10) Children placed in poor quality child care settings 
     have been found to have delayed language and reading skills, 
     as well as increased aggressive behavior toward other 
     children and adults.
       (11) Nearly 5,000,000 children are home alone after school 
     each week.
       (12) Although it is thought that juvenile crime occurs 
     mostly on evenings and weekends, juvenile crime actually 
     peaks between 3 and 6 p.m.
       (13) Eighth-graders left home alone after school report 
     greater use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana than those 
     in adult-supervised settings.
           TITLE I--IMPROVING THE AFFORDABILITY OF CHILD CARE

     SEC. 101. INCREASED APPROPRIATIONS FOR CHILD CARE GRANTS.

       Section 418(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     618(a)(3)) is amended by striking subparagraphs (C) through 
     (F) and inserting the following:
       ``(C) $3,167,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(D) $3,367,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(E) $4,067,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(F) $4,717,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       ``(G) $4,717,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.
   TITLE II--ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF CHILD CARE AND EARLY CHILDHOOD 
                              DEVELOPMENT
                         Subtitle A--Child Care

     SEC. 201. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF CHILD CARE.

       Section 418 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 618) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Grants To Improve the Quality of Child Care and Early 
     Childhood Development.--
       ``(1) Secretarial authority.--The Secretary shall use the 
     amounts appropriated under paragraph (2) to make grants to 
     States in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) Appropriation.--For grants under this section, there 
     are appropriated--
       ``(A) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(B) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(C) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(D) $350,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       ``(E) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
       ``(3) Allotments to states.--The amounts appropriated under 
     paragraph (2) for payments to States under this paragraph 
     shall be allotted among the States in the same manner as 
     amounts (including the redistribution of unused amounts) are 
     allotted or redistributed, as the case may be, under 
     subsection (a)(2), except that the matching requirement of 
     subsection (a)(2)(C) shall not apply to a grant made under 
     this subsection.
       ``(4) Use of funds.--Funds received by a State through a 
     grant made under this subsection may be used for any of the 
     following:
       ``(A) Bringing provider-child ratios up to standards 
     recommended by nationally recognized child care accrediting 
     bodies.
       ``(B) Improving the enforcement of licensing standards, 
     including the use of unannounced inspections of child care 
     providers.
       ``(C) Conducting background checks on child care providers.
       ``(D) Providing increased payment rates for child care 
     services for infants and for children with special health 
     care needs.
       ``(E) Providing increased payment rates for child care 
     services offered by licensed or accredited providers.
       ``(F) Improving the compensation of child care providers.
       ``(G) Assisting child care providers in becoming licensed 
     or accredited.
       ``(H) Expanding activities to educate parents on the 
     availability and quality of child care, including the 
     development and operation of resource and referral systems.
       ``(I) Creating support networks and mentoring and 
     apprenticeship programs for family child care providers.
       ``(J) Establishing linkages between child care services and 
     health care services.
       ``(K) Offering training and education to child care 
     providers, including offering scholarships and tax credits to 
     assist with the expenses of obtaining such training and 
     education.
       ``(L) Providing family support and parent education.
       ``(M) Ensuring the availability and quality of child care 
     for children with special health care needs.''.
             Subtitle B--Young Child Assistance Activities

     SEC. 211. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 14101 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8801).
       (2) Poverty line.--The term ``poverty line'' means the 
     poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 
     673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9902(2)) applicable to a family of the size involved.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (4) State board.--The term ``State board'' means a State 
     Early Learning Coordinating Board established under section 
     212(c).
       (5) Young child.--The term ``young child'' means an 
     individual from birth through age 5.
       (6) Young child assistance activities.--The term ``young 
     child assistance activities''

[[Page 708]]

     means the activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) 
     of section 213(b).

     SEC. 212. ALLOTMENTS TO STATES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall make allotments under 
     subsection (b) to eligible States to pay for the Federal 
     share of the cost of enabling the States to make grants to 
     local collaboratives under section 213 for young child 
     assistance activities.
       (b) Allotment.--
       (1) In general.--From the funds appropriated under section 
     215 for each fiscal year and not reserved under subsection 
     (i), the Secretary shall allot to each eligible State an 
     amount that bears the same relationship to such funds as the 
     total number of young children in poverty in the State bears 
     to the total number of young children in poverty in all 
     eligible States.
       (2) Young child in poverty.--In this subsection, the term 
     ``young child in poverty'' means an individual who--
       (A) is a young child; and
       (B) is a member of a family with an income below the 
     poverty line.
       (c) State Boards.--
       (1) In general.--In order for a State to be eligible to 
     obtain an allotment under this subtitle, the Governor of the 
     State shall establish, or designate an entity to serve as, a 
     State Early Learning Coordinating Board, which shall receive 
     the allotment and make the grants described in section 213.
       (2) Established board.--A State board established under 
     paragraph (1) shall consist of the Governor and members 
     appointed by the Governor, including--
       (A) representatives of all State agencies primarily 
     providing services to young children in the State;
       (B) representatives of business in the State;
       (C) chief executive officers of political subdivisions in 
     the State;
       (D) parents of young children in the State;
       (E) officers of community organizations serving low-income 
     individuals, as defined by the Secretary, in the State;
       (F) representatives of State nonprofit organizations that 
     represent the interests of young children in poverty, as 
     defined in subsection (b)(2), in the State;
       (G) representatives of organizations providing services to 
     young children and the parents of young children, such as 
     organizations providing child care, carrying out Head Start 
     programs under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), 
     providing services through a family resource center, 
     providing home visits, or providing health care services, in 
     the State; and
       (H) representatives of local educational agencies.
       (3) Designated board.--The Governor may designate an entity 
     to serve as the State board under paragraph (1) if the entity 
     includes the Governor and the members described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (G) of paragraph (2).
       (4) Designated state agency.--The Governor shall designate 
     a State agency that has a representative on the State board 
     to provide administrative oversight concerning the use of 
     funds made available under this subtitle and ensure 
     accountability for the funds.
       (d) Application.--To be eligible to receive an allotment 
     under this subtitle, a State board shall annually submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require. 
     At a minimum, the application shall contain--
       (1) sufficient information about the entity established or 
     designated under subsection (c) to serve as the State board 
     to enable the Secretary to determine whether the entity 
     complies with the requirements of such subsection;
       (2) a comprehensive State plan for carrying out young child 
     assistance activities;
       (3) an assurance that the State board will provide such 
     information as the Secretary shall by regulation require on 
     the amount of State and local public funds expended in the 
     State to provide services for young children; and
       (4) an assurance that the State board shall annually 
     compile and submit to the Secretary information from the 
     reports referred to in section 213(e)(2)(F)(iii) that 
     describes the results referred to in section 213(e)(2)(F)(i).
       (e) Federal Share.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost described in 
     subsection (a) shall be--
       (A) 85 percent, in the case of a State for which the 
     Federal medical assistance percentage (as defined in section 
     1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b))) is 
     not less than 50 percent, but is less than 60 percent;
       (B) 87.5 percent, in the case of a State for which such 
     percentage is not less than 60 percent, but is less than 70 
     percent; and
       (C) 90 percent, in the case of any State not described in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B).
       (2) State share.--
       (A) In general.--The State shall contribute the remaining 
     share (referred to in this paragraph as the ``State share'') 
     of the cost described in subsection (a).
       (B) Form.--The State share of the cost shall be in cash.
       (C) Sources.--The State may provide for the State share of 
     the cost from State or local sources, or through donations 
     from private entities.
       (f) State Administrative Costs.--
       (1) In general.--A State may use not more than 5 percent of 
     the funds made available through an allotment made under this 
     subtitle to pay for a portion, not to exceed 50 percent, of 
     State administrative costs related to carrying out this 
     subtitle.
       (2) Waiver.--A State may apply to the Secretary for a 
     waiver of paragraph (1). The Secretary may grant the waiver 
     if the Secretary finds that unusual circumstances prevent the 
     State from complying with paragraph (1). A State that 
     receives such a waiver may use not more than 7.5 percent of 
     the funds made available through the allotment to pay for the 
     State administrative costs.
       (g) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall monitor the activities 
     of States that receive allotments under this subtitle to 
     ensure compliance with the requirements of this subtitle, 
     including compliance with the State plans.
       (h) Enforcement.--If the Secretary determines that a State 
     that has received an allotment under this subtitle is not 
     complying with a requirement of this subtitle, the Secretary 
     may--
       (1) provide technical assistance to the State to improve 
     the ability of the State to comply with the requirement;
       (2) reduce, by not less than 5 percent, an allotment made 
     to the State under this section, for the second determination 
     of noncompliance;
       (3) reduce, by not less than 25 percent, an allotment made 
     to the State under this section, for the third determination 
     of noncompliance; or
       (4) revoke the eligibility of the State to receive 
     allotments under this section, for the fourth or subsequent 
     determination of noncompliance.
       (i) Technical Assistance.--From the funds appropriated 
     under section 215 for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     reserve not more than 1 percent of the funds to pay for the 
     costs of providing technical assistance. The Secretary shall 
     use the reserved funds to enter into contracts with eligible 
     entities to provide technical assistance, to local 
     collaboratives that receive grants under section 213, 
     relating to the functions of the local collaboratives under 
     this subtitle.

     SEC. 213. GRANTS TO LOCAL COLLABORATIVES.

       (a) In General.--A State board that receives an allotment 
     under section 212 shall use the funds made available through 
     the allotment, and the State contribution made under section 
     212(e)(2), to pay for the Federal and State shares of the 
     cost of making grants, on a competitive basis, to local 
     collaboratives to carry out young child assistance 
     activities.
       (b) Use of Funds.--A local collaborative that receives a 
     grant made under subsection (a)--
       (1) shall use funds made available through the grant to 
     provide, in a community, activities that consist of education 
     and supportive services, such as--
       (A) home visits for parents of young children;
       (B) services provided through community-based family 
     resource centers for such parents; and
       (C) collaborative pre-school efforts that link parenting 
     education for such parents to early childhood learning 
     services for young children; and
       (2) may use funds made available through the grant--
       (A) to provide, in the community, activities that consist 
     of--
       (i) activities designed to strengthen the quality of child 
     care for young children and expand the supply of high quality 
     child care services for young children;
       (ii) health care services for young children, including 
     increasing the level of immunization for young children in 
     the community, providing preventive health care screening and 
     education, and expanding health care services in schools, 
     child care facilities, clinics in public housing (as defined 
     in section 3(b) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437a(b))), and mobile dental and vision clinics;
       (iii) services for children with disabilities who are young 
     children; and
       (iv) activities designed to assist schools in providing 
     educational and other support services to young children, and 
     parents of young children, in the community, to be carried 
     out during extended hours when appropriate; and
       (B) to pay for the salary and expenses of the administrator 
     described in subsection (e)(4), in accordance with such 
     regulations as the Secretary shall prescribe.
       (c) Multi-Year Funding.--In making grants under this 
     section, a State board may make grants for grant periods of 
     more than 1 year to local collaboratives with demonstrated 
     success in carrying out young child assistance activities.
       (d) Local Collaboratives.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section for a community, a local 
     collaborative shall demonstrate that the collaborative--
       (1) is able to provide, through a coordinated effort, young 
     child assistance activities to young children, and parents of 
     young children, in the community; and
       (2) includes--
       (A) all public agencies primarily providing services to 
     young children in the community;

[[Page 709]]

       (B) businesses in the community;
       (C) representatives of the local government for the county 
     or other political subdivision in which the community is 
     located;
       (D) parents of young children in the community;
       (E) officers of community organizations serving low-income 
     individuals, as defined by the Secretary, in the community;
       (F) community-based organizations providing services to 
     young children and the parents of young children, such as 
     organizations providing child care, carrying out Head Start 
     programs, or providing pre-kindergarten education, mental 
     health, or family support services; and
       (G) nonprofit organizations that serve the community and 
     that are described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section 
     501(a) of such Code.
       (e) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a local collaborative shall submit an 
     application to the State board at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the State board may 
     require. At a minimum, the application shall contain--
       (1) sufficient information about the entity described in 
     subsection (d)(2) to enable the State board to determine 
     whether the entity complies with the requirements of such 
     subsection; and
       (2) a comprehensive plan for carrying out young child 
     assistance activities in the community, including information 
     indicating--
       (A) the young child assistance activities available in the 
     community, as of the date of submission of the plan, 
     including information on efforts to coordinate the 
     activities;
       (B) the unmet needs of young children, and parents of young 
     children, in the community for young child assistance 
     activities;
       (C) the manner in which funds made available through the 
     grant will be used--
       (i) to meet the needs, including expanding and 
     strengthening the activities described in subparagraph (A) 
     and establishing additional young child assistance 
     activities; and
       (ii) to improve results for young children in the 
     community;
       (D) how the local cooperative will use at least 60 percent 
     of the funds made available through the grant to provide 
     young child assistance activities to young children and 
     parents described in subsection (f);
       (E) the comprehensive methods that the collaborative will 
     use to ensure that--
       (i) each entity carrying out young child assistance 
     activities through the collaborative will coordinate the 
     activities with such activities carried out by other entities 
     through the collaborative; and
       (ii) the local collaborative will coordinate the activities 
     of the local collaborative with--

       (I) other services provided to young children, and the 
     parents of young children, in the community; and
       (II) the activities of other local collaboratives serving 
     young children and families in the community, if any; and

       (F) the manner in which the collaborative will, at such 
     intervals as the State board may require, submit information 
     to the State board to enable the State board to carry out 
     monitoring under section 212(g), including the manner in 
     which the collaborative will--
       (i) evaluate the results achieved by the collaborative for 
     young children and parents of young children through 
     activities carried out through the grant;
       (ii) evaluate how services can be more effectively 
     delivered to young children and the parents of young 
     children; and
       (iii) prepare and submit to the State board annual reports 
     describing the results;
       (3) an assurance that the local collaborative will comply 
     with the requirements of subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) of 
     paragraph (2), and subsection (g); and
       (4) an assurance that the local collaborative will hire an 
     administrator to oversee the provision of the activities 
     described in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of subsection (b).
       (f) Distribution.--In making grants under this section, the 
     State board shall ensure that at least 60 percent of the 
     funds made available through each grant are used to provide 
     the young child assistance activities to young children (and 
     parents of young children) who reside in school districts in 
     which half or more of the students receive free or reduced 
     price lunches under the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1751 et seq.).
       (g) Local Share.--
       (1) In general.--The local collaborative shall contribute a 
     percentage (referred to in this subsection as the ``local 
     share'') of the cost of carrying out the young child 
     assistance activities.
       (2) Percentage.--The Secretary shall by regulation specify 
     the percentage referred to in paragraph (1).
       (3) Form.--The local share of the cost shall be in cash.
       (4) Source.--The local collaborative shall provide for the 
     local share of the cost through donations from private 
     entities.
       (5) Waiver.--The State board shall waive the requirement of 
     paragraph (1) for poor rural and urban areas, as defined by 
     the Secretary.
       (h) Monitoring.--The State board shall monitor the 
     activities of local collaboratives that receive grants under 
     this subtitle to ensure compliance with the requirements of 
     this subtitle.

     SEC. 214. SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.

       Funds appropriated under this subtitle shall be used to 
     supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, and local 
     public funds expended to provide services for young children.

     SEC. 215. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     subtitle $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $250,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $1,000,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2004, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     2005 and each subsequent fiscal year.
         Subtitle C--Loan Cancellation for Child Care Providers

     SEC. 221. LOAN CANCELLATION.

       Section 465(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1087ee(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (G), (H), and (I) as 
     subparagraphs (H), (I), and (J), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (F), the following:
       ``(G) as a full-time child care provider or educator--
       ``(i) in a child care facility operated by an entity that 
     meets the applicable State or local government licensing, 
     certification, approval, or registration requirements, if 
     any; and
       ``(ii) who has a degree in early childhood education;''; 
     and
       (2) in paragraph (3)(A)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``(G), (H), or (I)'' and 
     inserting ``(H), (I), or (J)''; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or (G)'' after 
     ``subparagraph (B)''.
 TITLE III--EXPANDING THE AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILD 
                                  CARE

     SEC. 301. APPROPRIATIONS FOR AFTER-SCHOOL CARE.

       (a) Grants.--Section 418 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 618), as amended by section 201, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Grants To Increase the Availability and Quality of 
     School-Age Child Care.--
       ``(1) Secretarial authority.--The Secretary shall use the 
     amounts appropriated under paragraph (2) to make grants to 
     States in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) Appropriation.--For grants under this section, there 
     are appropriated--
       ``(A) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(B) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(C) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(D) $350,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       ``(E) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
       ``(3) Allotments to states.--The amounts appropriated under 
     paragraph (2) for payments to States under this paragraph 
     shall be allotted among the States in the same manner as 
     amounts (including the redistribution of unused amounts) are 
     allotted or redistributed, as the case may be, under 
     subsection (a)(2), except that the matching requirement of 
     subsection (a)(2)(C) shall not apply to a grant made under 
     this subsection.
       ``(4) Use of funds.--Funds received by a State through a 
     grant made under this subsection shall be used for the 
     provision of child care services before and after regular 
     school hours and during months in which schools are not in 
     session.''.
       (b) Definition of Eligible Child.--Section 658P(4)(A) of 
     the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 9858n(4)(A)) is amended by striking ``13'' and 
     inserting ``16''.

     SEC. 302. AMENDMENTS TO THE 21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING 
                   CENTERS ACT.

       (a) Program Authorization.--Section 10903 of the 21st 
     Century Community Learning Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8243) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``rural and inner-city''; and
       (B) by striking ``a rural or inner-city community'' and 
     inserting ``communities'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``, among urban and 
     rural areas of the United States, and among urban and rural 
     areas of a State'';
       (3) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (4) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Priority of Distribution.--In awarding grants under 
     this part, the Secretary shall give priority to rural, urban, 
     and low-income communities.''.
       (b) Application Requirements.--Section 10904 of the 21st 
     Century Community Learning Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8244) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3)(B), by inserting ``, including the 
     programs under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act 
     of 1990, '' after ``coordinated''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``a broad selection'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``child care services 
     before or after regular school hours that include mentoring 
     programs, academic assistance, recreational activities, or 
     technology training, and that may include drug, alcohol, and 
     gang prevention, job skills preparation, or health and 
     nutrition counseling.''.

[[Page 710]]

       (c) Uses of Funds.--Section 10905 of the 21st Century 
     Community Learning Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8245) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``not less than four'' and inserting ``any''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Child care services.''.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 10907 of the 
     21st Century Community Learning Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8247) 
     is amended by striking ``$20,000,000 for fiscal year 1995'' 
     and inserting ``$600,000,000 for fiscal year 1999''.
           TITLE IV--SUPPORTING FAMILY CHOICES IN CHILD CARE

     SEC. 401. EXPANDING THE DEPENDENT CARE TAX CREDIT.

       (a) Percentage of Employment-Related Expenses Determined by 
     Taxpayer Status.--Section 21(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (defining applicable percentage) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(2) Applicable percentage defined.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the term `applicable percentage' means--
       ``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), 50 percent 
     reduced (but not below 20 percent) by 1 percentage point for 
     each $1,000, or fraction thereof, by which the taxpayers's 
     adjusted gross income for the taxable year exceeds $30,000, 
     and
       ``(B) in the case of employment-related expenses described 
     in subsection (e)(11), 50 percent reduced (but not below 
     zero) by 1 percentage point for each $800, or fraction 
     thereof, by which the taxpayers's adjusted gross income for 
     the taxable year exceeds $30,000.''.
       (b) Inflation Adjustment for Allowable Expenses.--Section 
     21(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     dollar limit on amount creditable) is amended by striking 
     ``The amount determined'' and inserting ``In the case of any 
     taxable year beginning after 1999, each dollar amount 
     referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be increased by 
     an amount equal to such dollar amount multiplied by the cost-
     of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the 
     calendar year in which the taxable year begins, by 
     substituting `calendar year 1998' for `calendar year 1992' in 
     subparagraph (B) thereof. If any dollar amount after being 
     increased under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of 
     $10, such dollar amount shall be rounded to the nearest 
     multiple of $10. The amount determined''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999.

     SEC. 402. MINIMUM CREDIT ALLOWED FOR STAY-AT-HOME PARENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 21(e) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to special rules) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(11) Minimum credit allowed for stay-at-home parents.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (d), in the case of any taxpayer 
     with one or more qualifying individuals described in 
     subsection (b)(1)(A) under the age of 1 at any time during 
     the taxable year, such taxpayer shall be deemed to have 
     employment-related expenses with respect to such qualifying 
     individuals in an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) $90 for each month in such taxable year during which 
     at least one of such qualifying individuals is under the age 
     of 1, and
       ``(B) the amount of employment-related expenses otherwise 
     incurred for such qualifying individuals for the taxable year 
     (determined under this section without regard to this 
     paragraph).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999.

     SEC. 403. CREDIT MADE REFUNDABLE.

       (a) In General.--Part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to credits 
     against tax) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 35 as section 36, and
       (2) by redesignating section 21 as section 35.
       (b) Advance Payment of Credit.--Chapter 25 of such Code 
     (relating to general provisions relating to employment taxes) 
     is amended by inserting after section 3507 the following:

     ``SEC. 3507A. ADVANCE PAYMENT OF DEPENDENT CARE CREDIT.

       ``(a) General Rule.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, every employer making payment of wages with respect 
     to whom a dependent care eligibility certificate is in effect 
     shall, at the time of paying such wages, make an additional 
     payment equal to such employee's dependent care advance 
     amount.
       ``(b) Dependent Care Eligibility Certificate.--For purposes 
     of this title, a dependent care eligibility certificate is a 
     statement furnished by an employee to the employer which--
       ``(1) certifies that the employee will be eligible to 
     receive the credit provided by section 35 for the taxable 
     year,
       ``(2) certifies that the employee reasonably expects to be 
     an applicable taxpayer for the taxable year,
       ``(3) certifies that the employee does not have a dependent 
     care eligibility certificate in effect for the calendar year 
     with respect to the payment of wages by another employer,
       ``(4) states whether or not the employee's spouse has a 
     dependent care eligibility certificate in effect,
       ``(5) states the number of qualifying individuals in the 
     household maintained by the employee, and
       ``(6) estimates the amount of employment-related expenses 
     for the calendar year.
       ``(c) Dependent Care Advance Amount.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this title, the term 
     `dependent care advance amount' means, with respect to any 
     payroll period, the amount determined--
       ``(A) on the basis of the employee's wages from the 
     employer for such period,
       ``(B) on the basis of the employee's estimated employment-
     related expenses included in the dependent care eligibility 
     certificate, and
       ``(C) in accordance with tables provided by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Advance amount tables.--The tables referred to in 
     paragraph (1)(C) shall be similar in form to the tables 
     prescribed under section 3402 and, to the maximum extent 
     feasible, shall be coordinated with such tables and the 
     tables prescribed under section 3507(c).
       ``(d) Other Rules.--For purposes of this section, rules 
     similar to the rules of subsections (d) and (e) of section 
     3507 shall apply.
       ``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, terms 
     used in this section which are defined in section 35 shall 
     have the respective meanings given such terms by section 
     35.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 35(a)(1) of such Code, as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1), is amended by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subtitle''.
       (2) Section 35(e) of such Code, as so redesignated and 
     amended by subsection (c), is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(12) Coordination with advance payments and minimum 
     tax.--Rules similar to the rules of subsections (g) and (h) 
     of section 32 shall apply for purposes of this section.''.
       (3) Sections 23(f)(1) and 129(a)(2)(C) of such Code are 
     each amended by striking ``section 21(e)'' and inserting 
     ``section 35(e)''.
       (4) Section 129(b)(2) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``section 21(d)(2)'' and inserting ``section 35(d)(2)''.
       (5) Section 129(e)(1) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``section 21(b)(2)'' and inserting ``section 35(b)(2)''.
       (6) Section 213(e) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``section 21'' and inserting ``section 35''.
       (7) Section 995(f)(2)(C) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``and 34'' and inserting ``34, and 35''.
       (8) Section 6211(b)(4)(A) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``and 34'' and inserting ``, 34, and 35''.
       (9) Section 6213(g)(2)(H) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``section 21'' and inserting ``section 35''.
       (10) Section 6213(g)(2)(L) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``section 21, 24, or 32'' and inserting ``section 
     24, 32, or 35''.
       (11) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 35 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 35. Dependent care services.
``Sec. 36. Overpayments of tax.''.
       (12) The table of sections for subpart A of such part IV is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 21.
       (13) The table of sections for chapter 25 of such Code is 
     amended by adding after the item relating to section 3507 the 
     following:

``Sec. 3507A. Advance payment of dependent care credit.''.
       (14) Section 1324(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting before the period ``, or enacted by the 
     Child Care ACCESS (Affordable Child Care for Early Success 
     and Security) Act''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999.
            TITLE V--ENCOURAGING PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT

     SEC. 501. ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT FOR EMPLOYER EXPENSES FOR CHILD 
                   CARE ASSISTANCE.

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

     ``SEC. 45D. EMPLOYER-PROVIDED CHILD CARE CREDIT.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--For purposes of section 38, the 
     employer-provided child care credit determined under this 
     section for the taxable year is an amount equal to 25 percent 
     of the qualified child care expenditures of the taxpayer for 
     such taxable year.
       ``(b) Dollar Limitation.--The credit allowable under 
     subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed 
     $150,000.
       ``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualified child care expenditure.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified child care 
     expenditure' means any amount paid or incurred--
       ``(i) to acquire, construct, rehabilitate, or expand 
     property--

       ``(I) which is to be used as part of a qualified child care 
     facility of the taxpayer,

[[Page 711]]

       ``(II) with respect to which a deduction for depreciation 
     (or amortization in lieu of depreciation) is allowable, and
       ``(III) which does not constitute part of the principal 
     residence (within the meaning of section 121) of the taxpayer 
     or any employee of the taxpayer,

       ``(ii) for the operating costs of a qualified child care 
     facility of the taxpayer, including costs related to the 
     training of employees of the child care facility, to 
     scholarship programs, to the providing of differential 
     compensation to employees based on level of child care 
     training, and to expenses associated with achieving 
     accreditation,
       ``(iii) under a contract with a qualified child care 
     facility to provide child care services to employees of the 
     taxpayer, or
       ``(iv) under a contract to provide child care resource and 
     referral services to employees of the taxpayer.
       ``(B) Exclusion for amounts funded by grants, etc.--The 
     term `qualified child care expenditure' shall not include any 
     amount to the extent such amount is funded by any grant, 
     contract, or otherwise by another person (or any governmental 
     entity).
       ``(C) Limitation on allowable operating costs.--The term 
     `qualified child care expenditure' shall not include any 
     amount described in subparagraph (A)(ii) if such amount is 
     paid or incurred after the third taxable year in which a 
     credit under this section is taken by the taxpayer, unless 
     the qualified child care facility of the taxpayer has 
     received accreditation from a nationally recognized 
     accrediting body before the end of such third taxable year.
       ``(2) Qualified child care facility.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified child care facility' 
     means a facility--
       ``(i) the principal use of which is to provide child care 
     assistance, and
       ``(ii) which meets the requirements of all applicable laws 
     and regulations of the State or local government in which it 
     is located, including, but not limited to, the licensing of 
     the facility as a child care facility.

     Clause (i) shall not apply to a facility which is the 
     principal residence (within the meaning of section 121) of 
     the operator of the facility.
       ``(B) Special rules with respect to a taxpayer.--A facility 
     shall not be treated as a qualified child care facility with 
     respect to a taxpayer unless--
       ``(i) enrollment in the facility is open to employees of 
     the taxpayer during the taxable year,
       ``(ii) the facility is not the principal trade or business 
     of the taxpayer unless at least 30 percent of the enrollees 
     of such facility are dependents of employees of the taxpayer, 
     and
       ``(iii) the costs to employees of child care services at 
     such facility are determined on a sliding fee scale.
       ``(d) Recapture of Acquisition and Construction Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--If, as of the close of any taxable year, 
     there is a recapture event with respect to any qualified 
     child care facility of the taxpayer, then the tax of the 
     taxpayer under this chapter for such taxable year shall be 
     increased by an amount equal to the product of--
       ``(A) the applicable recapture percentage, and
       ``(B) the aggregate decrease in the credits allowed under 
     section 38 for all prior taxable years which would have 
     resulted if the qualified child care expenditures of the 
     taxpayer described in subsection (c)(1)(A) with respect to 
     such facility had been zero.
       ``(2) Applicable recapture percentage.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     applicable recapture percentage shall be determined from the 
     following table:

                                                         The applicable
                                                              recapture
                                    ``If the recapture evpercentage is:
    Years 1-3....................................................100   
    Year 4........................................................85   
    Year 5........................................................70   
    Year 6........................................................55   
    Year 7........................................................40   
    Year 8........................................................25   
    Years 9 and 10................................................10   
    Years 11 and thereafter........................................0.  
       ``(B) Years.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), year 1 
     shall begin on the first day of the taxable year in which the 
     qualified child care facility is placed in service by the 
     taxpayer.
       ``(3) Recapture event defined.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `recapture event' means--
       ``(A) Cessation of operation.--The cessation of the 
     operation of the facility as a qualified child care facility.
       ``(B) Change in ownership.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     disposition of a taxpayer's interest in a qualified child 
     care facility with respect to which the credit described in 
     subsection (a) was allowable.
       ``(ii) Agreement to assume recapture liability.--Clause (i) 
     shall not apply if the person acquiring such interest in the 
     facility agrees in writing to assume the recapture liability 
     of the person disposing of such interest in effect 
     immediately before such disposition. In the event of such an 
     assumption, the person acquiring the interest in the facility 
     shall be treated as the taxpayer for purposes of assessing 
     any recapture liability (computed as if there had been no 
     change in ownership).
       ``(4) Special rules.--
       ``(A) Tax benefit rule.--The tax for the taxable year shall 
     be increased under paragraph (1) only with respect to credits 
     allowed by reason of this section which were used to reduce 
     tax liability. In the case of credits not so used to reduce 
     tax liability, the carryforwards and carrybacks under section 
     39 shall be appropriately adjusted.
       ``(B) No credits against tax.--Any increase in tax under 
     this subsection shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this 
     chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit 
     under subpart A, B, or D of this part.
       ``(C) No recapture by reason of casualty loss.--The 
     increase in tax under this subsection shall not apply to a 
     cessation of operation of the facility as a qualified child 
     care facility by reason of a casualty loss to the extent such 
     loss is restored by reconstruction or replacement within a 
     reasonable period established by the Secretary.
       ``(e) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Aggregation rules.--All persons which are treated as 
     a single employer under subsections (a) and (b) of section 52 
     shall be treated as a single taxpayer.
       ``(2) Pass-thru in the case of estates and trusts.--Under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary, rules similar to the 
     rules of subsection (d) of section 52 shall apply.
       ``(3) Allocation in the case of partnerships.--In the case 
     of partnerships, the credit shall be allocated among partners 
     under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(f) No Double Benefit.--
       ``(1) Reduction in basis.--For purposes of this subtitle--
       ``(A) In general.--If a credit is determined under this 
     section with respect to any property by reason of 
     expenditures described in subsection (c)(1)(A), the basis of 
     such property shall be reduced by the amount of the credit so 
     determined.
       ``(B) Certain dispositions.--If during any taxable year 
     there is a recapture amount determined with respect to any 
     property the basis of which was reduced under subparagraph 
     (A), the basis of such property (immediately before the event 
     resulting in such recapture) shall be increased by an amount 
     equal to such recapture amount. For purposes of the preceding 
     sentence, the term `recapture amount' means any increase in 
     tax (or adjustment in carrybacks or carryovers) determined 
     under subsection (d).
       ``(2) Other deductions and credits.--No deduction or credit 
     shall be allowed under any other provision of this chapter 
     with respect to the amount of the credit determined under 
     this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking out ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (11),
       (B) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph 
     (12), and inserting a comma and ``plus'', and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(13) the employer-provided child care credit determined 
     under section 45D.''.
       (2) The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 45D. Employer-provided child care credit.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1999.

     SEC. 502. GRANTS TO SUPPORT PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall establish a program to award grants to local 
     communities for the purpose of expanding the availability of, 
     and improving the quality of, child care on a community-wide 
     basis.
       (b) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a local community shall prepare and submit to 
     the Secretary an application at such time and in such manner 
     as the Secretary may require, and that includes--
       (1) an assurance that the matching funds required under 
     subsection (c) will be provided;
       (2) evidence of collaboration with parents, schools, 
     employers, State and local government agencies, and child 
     care agencies, including resource and referral agencies, in 
     the preparation of the application;
       (3) an assessment of child care resources and needs within 
     the community; and
       (4) any additional information that the Secretary may 
     require.
       (c) Matching Requirement.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section a local community shall provide 
     assurances to the Secretary that the community will provide 
     matching funds in the amount of $1 for every $2 provided 
     under the grant. Such funds shall be generated from private 
     sources, including employers and philanthropic organizations.
       (d) Use of Funds.--A local community shall use the funds 
     provided under a grant awarded under this section only for 
     the purposes described in subsection (a).

[[Page 712]]

       (e) Administration.--A local community awarded a grant 
     under this section may authorize a public or nonprofit entity 
     within the community to act as the fiscal agent for the 
     administration of the program funded under the grant.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $100,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
      TITLE VI--ENSURING THE QUALITY OF FEDERAL CHILD CARE CENTERS

     SEC. 601. QUALITY CHILD CARE FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Accredited child care center.--The term ``accredited 
     child care center'' means--
       (A) a center that is accredited, by a child care 
     credentialing or accreditation entity recognized by a State, 
     to provide child care to children in the State (except 
     children who a tribal organization elects to serve through a 
     center described in subparagraph (B));
       (B) a center that is accredited, by a child care 
     credentialing or accreditation entity recognized by a tribal 
     organization, to provide child care for children served by 
     the tribal organization;
       (C) a center that is used as a Head Start center under the 
     Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.) and is in compliance 
     with any applicable performance standards established by 
     regulation under such Act for Head Start programs; or
       (D) a military child development center (as defined in 
     section 1798(1) of title 10, United States Code).
       (2) Child care credentialing or accreditation entity.--The 
     term ``child care credentialing or accreditation entity'' 
     means a nonprofit private organization or public agency 
     that--
       (A) is recognized by a State agency or tribal organization; 
     and
       (B) accredits a center or credentials an individual to 
     provide child care on the basis of--
       (i) an accreditation or credentialing instrument based on 
     peer-validated research;
       (ii) compliance with applicable State and local licensing 
     requirements, or standards described in section 
     658E(c)(2)(E)(ii) of the Child Care and Development Block 
     Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9858c(c)(2)(E)(ii)), as appropriate, for 
     the center or individual;
       (iii) outside monitoring of the center or individual; and
       (iv) criteria that provide assurances of--

       (I) compliance with age-appropriate health and safety 
     standards at the center or by the individual;
       (II) use of age-appropriate developmental and educational 
     activities, as an integral part of the child care program 
     carried out at the center or by the individual; and
       (III) use of ongoing staff development or training 
     activities for the staff of the center or the individual, 
     including related skills-based testing.

       (3) Credentialed child care professional.--The term 
     ``credentialed child care professional'' means--
       (A) an individual who is credentialed, by a child care 
     credentialing or accreditation entity recognized by a State, 
     to provide child care to children in the State (except 
     children who a tribal organization elects to serve through an 
     individual described in subparagraph (B)); or
       (B) an individual who is credentialed, by a child care 
     credentialing or accreditation entity recognized by a tribal 
     organization, to provide child care for children served by 
     the tribal organization.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 658P of the Child Care and Development Block 
     Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9858n).
       (b) Providing Quality Child Care in Federal Facilities.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of General Services.
       (B) Entity sponsoring a child care center.--The term 
     ``entity sponsoring a child care center'' means a Federal 
     agency that operates, or an entity that enters into a 
     contract or licensing agreement with a Federal agency to 
     operate, a child care center.
       (C) Executive agency.--The term ``Executive agency'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 105 of title 5, United 
     States Code, except that the term--
       (i) does not include the Department of Defense; and
       (ii) includes the General Services Administration, with 
     respect to the administration of a facility described in 
     subparagraph (D)(ii).
       (D) Executive facility.--The term ``executive facility''--
       (i) means a facility that is owned or leased by an 
     Executive agency; and
       (ii) includes a facility that is owned or leased by the 
     General Services Administration on behalf of a judicial 
     office.
       (E) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means an 
     Executive agency, a judicial office, or a legislative office.
       (F) Judicial facility.--The term ``judicial facility'' 
     means a facility that is owned or leased by a judicial office 
     (other than a facility that is also a facility described in 
     subparagraph (D)(ii)).
       (G) Judicial office.--The term ``judicial office'' means an 
     entity of the judicial branch of the Federal Government.
       (H) Legislative facility.--The term ``legislative 
     facility'' means a facility that is owned or leased by a 
     legislative office.
       (I) Legislative office.--The term ``legislative office'' 
     means an entity of the legislative branch of the Federal 
     Government.
       (2) Executive branch standards and compliance.--
       (A) State and local licensing requirements.--
       (i) In general.--Any entity sponsoring a child care center 
     in an executive facility shall--

       (I) obtain the appropriate State and local licenses for the 
     center; and
       (II) in a location where the State or locality does not 
     license executive facilities, comply with the appropriate 
     State and local licensing requirements related to the 
     provision of child care.

       (ii) Compliance.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act--

       (I) the entity shall comply, or make substantial progress 
     (as determined by the Administrator) toward complying, with 
     clause (i); and
       (II) any contract or licensing agreement used by an 
     Executive agency for the operation of such a child care 
     center shall include a condition that the child care be 
     provided by an entity that complies with the appropriate 
     State and local licensing requirements related to the 
     provision of child care.

       (B) Health, safety, and facility standards.--The 
     Administrator shall by regulation establish standards 
     relating to health, safety, facilities, facility design, and 
     other aspects of child care that the Administrator determines 
     to be appropriate for child care centers in executive 
     facilities, and require child care centers, and entities 
     sponsoring child care centers, in executive facilities to 
     comply with the standards.
       (C) Accreditation standards.--
       (i) In general.--The Administrator shall issue regulations 
     requiring, to the maximum extent possible, any entity 
     sponsoring an eligible child care center (as defined by the 
     Administrator) in an executive facility to comply with child 
     care center accreditation standards issued by a nationally 
     recognized accreditation organization approved by the 
     Administrator.
       (ii) Compliance.--The regulations shall require that, not 
     later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act--

       (I) the entity shall comply, or make substantial progress 
     (as determined by the Administrator) toward complying, with 
     the standards; and
       (II) any contract or licensing agreement used by an 
     Executive agency for the operation of such a child care 
     center shall include a condition that the child care be 
     provided by an entity that complies with the standards.

       (iii) Contents.--The standards shall base accreditation 
     on--

       (I) an accreditation instrument described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(B);
       (II) outside monitoring described in subsection (a)(2)(B), 
     by--

       (aa) the Administrator; or
       (bb) a child care credentialing or accreditation entity, or 
     other entity, with which the Administrator enters into a 
     contract to provide such monitoring; and

       (III) the criteria described in subsection (a)(2)(B).

       (D) Evaluation and compliance.--
       (i) In general.--The Administrator shall evaluate the 
     compliance, with the requirements of subparagraph (A) and the 
     regulations issued pursuant to subparagraphs (B) and (C), of 
     child care centers, and entities sponsoring child care 
     centers, in executive facilities. The Administrator may 
     conduct the evaluation of such a child care center or entity 
     directly, or through an agreement with another Federal agency 
     or private entity, other than the Federal agency for which 
     the child care center is providing services. If the 
     Administrator determines, on the basis of such an evaluation, 
     that the child care center or entity is not in compliance 
     with the requirements, the Administrator shall notify the 
     Executive agency.
       (ii) Effect of noncompliance.--On receipt of the 
     notification of noncompliance issued by the Administrator, 
     the head of the Executive agency shall--

       (I) if the entity operating the child care center is the 
     agency--

       (aa) within 2 business days after the date of receipt of 
     the notification, correct any deficiencies that are 
     determined by the Administrator to be life threatening or to 
     present a risk of serious bodily harm;
       (bb) develop and provide to the Administrator a plan to 
     correct any other deficiencies in the operation of the center 
     and bring the center and entity into compliance with the 
     requirements not later than 4 months after the date of 
     receipt of the notification;
       (cc) provide the parents of the children receiving child 
     care services at the center with a notification detailing the 
     deficiencies described in items (aa) and (bb) and actions 
     that will be taken to correct the deficiencies;
       (dd) bring the center and entity into compliance with the 
     requirements and certify to the Administrator that the center 
     and entity

[[Page 713]]

     are in compliance, based on an onsite evaluation of the 
     center conducted by an independent entity with expertise in 
     child care health and safety; and
       (ee) in the event that deficiencies determined by the 
     Administrator to be life threatening or to present a risk of 
     serious bodily harm cannot be corrected within 2 business 
     days after the date of receipt of the notification, close the 
     center or portion of the center where the deficiency was 
     identified until such deficiencies are corrected and notify 
     the Administrator of such closure; and

       (II) if the entity operating the child care center is a 
     contractor or licensee of the Executive agency--

       (aa) require the contractor or licensee within 2 business 
     days after the date of receipt of the notification, to 
     correct any deficiencies that are determined by the 
     Administrator to be life threatening or to present a risk of 
     serious bodily harm:
       (bb) require the contractor or licensee to develop and 
     provide to the head of the agency a plan to correct any other 
     deficiencies in the operation of the center and bring the 
     center and entity into compliance with the requirements not 
     later than 4 months after the date of receipt of the 
     notification;
       (cc) require the contractor or licensee to provide the 
     parents of the children receiving child care services at the 
     center with a notification detailing the deficiencies 
     described in items (aa) and (bb) and actions that will be 
     taken to correct the deficiencies;
       (dd) require the contractor or licensee to bring the center 
     and entity into compliance with the requirements and certify 
     to the head of the agency that the center and entity are in 
     compliance, based on an onsite evaluation of the center 
     conducted by an independent entity with expertise in child 
     care health and safety; and
       (ee) in the event that deficiencies determined by the 
     Administrator to be life threatening or to present a risk of 
     serious bodily harm cannot be corrected within 2 business 
     days after the date of receipt of the notification, close the 
     center or portion of the center where the deficiency was 
     identified until such deficiencies are corrected and notify 
     the Administrator of such closure, which closure shall be 
     grounds for the immediate termination or suspension of the 
     contract or license of the contractor or licensee.
       (iii) Cost reimbursement.--The Executive agency shall 
     reimburse the Administrator for the costs of carrying out 
     clause (i) for child care centers located in an executive 
     facility other than an executive facility of the General 
     Services Administration. If an entity is sponsoring a child 
     care center for 2 or more Executive agencies, the 
     Administrator shall allocate the costs of providing such 
     reimbursement with respect to the entity among the agencies 
     in a fair and equitable manner, based on the extent to which 
     each agency is eligible to place children in the center.
       (3) Legislative branch standards and compliance.--
       (A) State and local licensing requirements, health, safety, 
     and facility standards, and accreditation standards.--The 
     Architect of the Capitol shall issue regulations approved by 
     the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate and 
     the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 
     Representatives for child care centers, and entities 
     sponsoring child care centers, in legislative facilities, 
     which shall be no less stringent in content and effect than 
     the requirements of paragraph (2)(A) and the regulations 
     issued by the Administrator under subparagraphs (B) and (C) 
     of paragraph (2), except to the extent that the Architect 
     with the consent and approval of the Committee on Rules and 
     Administration of the Senate and the Committee on House 
     Oversight of the House of Representatives, may determine, for 
     good cause shown and stated together with the regulations, 
     that a modification of such regulations would be more 
     effective for the implementation of the requirements and 
     standards described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of 
     paragraph (2) for child care centers, and entities sponsoring 
     child care centers, in legislative facilities.
       (B) Evaluation and compliance.--
       (i) Architect of the capitol.--The Architect of the Capitol 
     shall have the same authorities and duties with respect to 
     the evaluation of, compliance of, and cost reimbursement for 
     child care centers, and entities sponsoring child care 
     centers, in legislative facilities as the Administrator has 
     under paragraph (2)(D) with respect to the evaluation of, 
     compliance of, and cost reimbursement for such centers and 
     entities sponsoring such centers, in executive facilities.
       (ii) Head of a legislative office.--The head of a 
     legislative office shall have the same authorities and duties 
     with respect to the compliance of and cost reimbursement for 
     child care centers, and entities sponsoring child care 
     centers, in legislative facilities as the head of an 
     Executive agency has under paragraph (2)(D) with respect to 
     the compliance of and cost reimbursement for such centers and 
     entities sponsoring such centers, in executive facilities.
       (4) Judicial branch standards and compliance.--
       (A) State and local licensing requirements, health, safety, 
     and facility standards, and accreditation standards.--The 
     Director of the Administrative Office of the United States 
     Courts shall issue regulations for child care centers, and 
     entities sponsoring child care centers, in judicial 
     facilities, which shall be no less stringent in content and 
     effect than the requirements of paragraph (2)(A) and the 
     regulations issued by the Administrator under subparagraphs 
     (B) and (C) of paragraph (2), except to the extent that the 
     Director may determine, for good cause shown and stated 
     together with the regulations, that a modification of such 
     regulations would be more effective for the implementation of 
     the requirements and standards described in subparagraphs 
     (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) for child care centers, 
     and entities sponsoring child care centers, in judicial 
     facilities.
       (B) Evaluation and compliance.--
       (i) Director of the administrative office of the united 
     states courts.--The Director of the Administrative Office of 
     the United States Courts shall have the same authorities and 
     duties with respect to the evaluation of, compliance of, and 
     cost reimbursement for child care centers, and entities 
     sponsoring child care centers, in judicial facilities as the 
     Administrator has under paragraph (2)(D) with respect to the 
     evaluation of, compliance of, and cost reimbursement for such 
     centers and entities sponsoring such centers, in executive 
     facilities.
       (ii) Head of a judicial office.--The head of a judicial 
     office shall have the same authorities and duties with 
     respect to the compliance of and cost reimbursement for child 
     care centers, and entities sponsoring child care centers, in 
     judicial facilities as the head of an Executive agency has 
     under paragraph (2)(D) with respect to the compliance of and 
     cost reimbursement for such centers and entities sponsoring 
     such centers, in executive facilities.
       (5) Application.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, if 8 or more child care centers are sponsored 
     in facilities owned or leased by an Executive agency, the 
     Administrator shall delegate to the head of the agency the 
     evaluation and compliance responsibilities assigned to the 
     Administrator under paragraph (2)(D)(i).
       (6) Technical assistance, studies, and reviews.--The 
     Administrator may provide technical assistance, and conduct 
     and provide the results of studies and reviews, for Executive 
     agencies, and entities sponsoring child care centers in 
     executive facilities, on a reimbursable basis, in order to 
     assist the entities in complying with this section. The 
     Architect of the Capitol and the Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts may provide 
     technical assistance, and conduct and provide the results of 
     studies and reviews, or request that the Administrator 
     provide technical assistance, and conduct and provide the 
     results of studies and reviews, for legislative offices and 
     judicial offices, respectively, and entities operating child 
     care centers in legislative facilities and judicial 
     facilities, respectively, on a reimbursable basis, in order 
     to assist the entities in complying with this section.
       (7) Council.--The Administrator shall establish an 
     interagency council, comprised of all Executive agencies 
     described in paragraph (5), a representative of the Office of 
     Architect of the Capitol, and a representative of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts, to 
     facilitate cooperation and sharing of best practices, and to 
     develop and coordinate policy, regarding the provision of 
     child care in the Federal Government.
       (8) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $900,000 for 
     fiscal year 1999 and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     subsequent fiscal year.

               TITLE VI--CHILD CARE IN FEDERAL FACILITIES

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Quality Child Care for 
     Federal Employees Act''.

     SEC. 602. PROVIDING QUALITY CHILD CARE IN FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       (a) Definition.--In this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of General Services.
       (2) Child care accreditation entity.--The term ``child care 
     accreditation entity'' means a nonprofit private organization 
     or public agency that--
       (A) is recognized by a State agency or by a national 
     organization that serves as a peer review panel on the 
     standards and procedures of public and private child care or 
     school accrediting bodies; and
       (B) accredits a facility to provide child care on the basis 
     of--
       (i) an accreditation or credentialing instrument based on 
     peer-validated research;
       (ii) compliance with applicable State or local licensing 
     requirements, as appropriate, for the facility;
       (iii) outside monitoring of the facility; and
       (iv) criteria that provide assurances of--

       (I) use of developmentally appropriate health and safety 
     standards at the facility;
       (II) use of developmentally appropriate educational 
     activities, as an integral part of the child care program 
     carried out at the facility; and
       (III) use of ongoing staff development or training 
     activities for the staff of the facility, including related 
     skills-based testing.

[[Page 714]]

       (3) Entity sponsoring a child care facility.--The term 
     ``entity sponsoring a child care facility'' means a Federal 
     agency that operates, or an entity that enters into a 
     contract or licensing agreement with a Federal agency to 
     operate, a child care facility primarily for the use of 
     Federal employees.
       (4) Executive agency.--The term ``Executive agency'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 105 of title 5, United 
     States Code, except that the term--
       (A) does not include the Department of Defense and the 
     Coast Guard; and
       (B) includes the General Services Administration, with 
     respect to the administration of a facility described in 
     paragraph (5)(B).
       (5) Executive facility.--The term ``executive facility''--
       (A) means a facility that is owned or leased by an 
     Executive agency; and
       (B) includes a facility that is owned or leased by the 
     General Services Administration on behalf of a judicial 
     office.
       (6) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means an 
     Executive agency, a legislative office, or a judicial office.
       (7) Judicial facility.--The term ``judicial facility'' 
     means a facility that is owned or leased by a judicial office 
     (other than a facility that is also a facility described in 
     paragraph (4)(B)).
       (8) Judicial office.--The term ``judicial office'' means an 
     entity of the judicial branch of the Federal Government.
       (9) Legislative facility.--The term ``legislative 
     facility'' means a facility that is owned or leased by a 
     legislative office.
       (10) Legislative office.--The term ``legislative office'' 
     means an entity of the legislative branch of the Federal 
     Government.
       (11) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 658P of the Child Care and Development Block 
     Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9858n).
       (b) Executive Branch Standards and Compliance.--
       (1) State and local licensing requirements.--
       (A) In general.--Any entity sponsoring a child care 
     facility in an executive facility shall--
       (i) comply with child care standards described in paragraph 
     (2) that, at a minimum, include all applicable State or local 
     licensing requirements, as appropriate, related to the 
     provision of child care in the State or locality involved; 
     and
       (ii) obtain the applicable State or local licenses, as 
     appropriate, for the facility.
       (B) Compliance.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act--
       (i) the entity shall comply, or make substantial progress 
     (as determined by the Administrator) toward complying, with 
     subparagraph (A); and
       (ii) any contract or licensing agreement used by an 
     Executive agency for the provision of child care services in 
     such child care facility shall include a condition that the 
     child care be provided by an entity that complies with the 
     standards described in subparagraph (A)(i) and obtains the 
     licenses described in subparagraph (A)(ii).
       (2) Health, safety, and facility standards.--The 
     Administrator shall by regulation establish standards 
     relating to health, safety, facilities, facility design, and 
     other aspects of child care that the Administrator determines 
     to be appropriate for child care in executive facilities, and 
     require child care facilities, and entities sponsoring child 
     care facilities, in executive facilities to comply with the 
     standards. Such standards shall include requirements that 
     child care facilities be inspected for, and be free of, lead 
     hazards.
       (3) Accreditation standards.--
       (A) In general.--The Administrator shall issue regulations 
     requiring, to the maximum extent possible, any entity 
     sponsoring an eligible child care facility (as defined by the 
     Administrator) in an executive facility to comply with 
     standards of a child care accreditation entity.
       (B) Compliance.--The regulations shall require that, not 
     later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act--
       (i) the entity shall comply, or make substantial progress 
     (as determined by the Administrator) toward complying, with 
     the standards; and
       (ii) any contract or licensing agreement used by an 
     Executive agency for the provision of child care services in 
     such child care facility shall include a condition that the 
     child care be provided by an entity that complies with the 
     standards.
       (4) Evaluation and compliance.--
       (A) In general.--The Administrator shall evaluate the 
     compliance, with the requirements of paragraph (1) and the 
     regulations issued pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3), as 
     appropriate, of child care facilities, and entities 
     sponsoring child care facilities, in executive facilities. 
     The Administrator may conduct the evaluation of such a child 
     care facility or entity directly, or through an agreement 
     with another Federal agency or private entity, other than the 
     Federal agency for which the child care facility is providing 
     services. If the Administrator determines, on the basis of 
     such an evaluation, that the child care facility or entity is 
     not in compliance with the requirements, the Administrator 
     shall notify the Executive agency.
       (B) Effect of noncompliance.--On receipt of the 
     notification of noncompliance issued by the Administrator, 
     the head of the Executive agency shall--
       (i) if the entity operating the child care facility is the 
     agency--

       (I) not later than 2 business days after the date of 
     receipt of the notification, correct any deficiencies that 
     are determined by the Administrator to be life threatening or 
     to present a risk of serious bodily harm;
       (II) develop and provide to the Administrator a plan to 
     correct any other deficiencies in the operation of the child 
     care facility and bring the facility and entity into 
     compliance with the requirements not later than 4 months 
     after the date of receipt of the notification;
       (III) provide the parents of the children receiving child 
     care services at the child care facility and employees of the 
     facility with a notification detailing the deficiencies 
     described in subclauses (I) and (II) and actions that will be 
     taken to correct the deficiencies, and post a copy of the 
     notification in a conspicuous place in the facility for 5 
     working days or until the deficiencies are corrected, 
     whichever is later;
       (IV) bring the child care facility and entity into 
     compliance with the requirements and certify to the 
     Administrator that the facility and entity are in compliance, 
     based on an onsite evaluation of the facility conducted by an 
     independent entity with expertise in child care health and 
     safety; and
       (V) in the event that deficiencies determined by the 
     Administrator to be life threatening or to present a risk of 
     serious bodily harm cannot be corrected within 2 business 
     days after the date of receipt of the notification, close the 
     child care facility, or the affected portion of the facility, 
     until such deficiencies are corrected and notify the 
     Administrator of such closure; and

       (ii) if the entity operating the child care facility is a 
     contractor or licensee of the Executive agency--

       (I) require the contractor or licensee, not later than 2 
     business days after the date of receipt of the notification, 
     to correct any deficiencies that are determined by the 
     Administrator to be life threatening or to present a risk of 
     serious bodily harm;
       (II) require the contractor or licensee to develop and 
     provide to the head of the agency a plan to correct any other 
     deficiencies in the operation of the child care facility and 
     bring the facility and entity into compliance with the 
     requirements not later than 4 months after the date of 
     receipt of the notification;
       (III) require the contractor or licensee to provide the 
     parents of the children receiving child care services at the 
     child care facility and employees of the facility with a 
     notification detailing the deficiencies described in 
     subclauses (I) and (II) and actions that will be taken to 
     correct the deficiencies, and to post a copy of the 
     notification in a conspicuous place in the facility for 5 
     working days or until the deficiencies are corrected, 
     whichever is later;
       (IV) require the contractor or licensee to bring the child 
     care facility and entity into compliance with the 
     requirements and certify to the head of the agency that the 
     facility and entity are in compliance, based on an onsite 
     evaluation of the facility conducted by an independent entity 
     with expertise in child care health and safety; and
       (V) in the event that deficiencies determined by the 
     Administrator to be life threatening or to present a risk of 
     serious bodily harm cannot be corrected within 2 business 
     days after the date of receipt of the notification, close the 
     child care facility, or the affected portion of the facility, 
     until such deficiencies are corrected and notify the 
     Administrator of such closure, which closure may be grounds 
     for the immediate termination or suspension of the contract 
     or license of the contractor or licensee.

       (C) Cost reimbursement.--The Executive agency shall 
     reimburse the Administrator for the costs of carrying out 
     subparagraph (A) for child care facilities located in an 
     executive facility other than an executive facility of the 
     General Services Administration. If an entity is sponsoring a 
     child care facility for 2 or more Executive agencies, the 
     Administrator shall allocate the costs of providing such 
     reimbursement with respect to the entity among the agencies 
     in a fair and equitable manner, based on the extent to which 
     each agency is eligible to place children in the facility.
       (5) Disclosure of prior violations to parents and facility 
     employees.--The Administrator shall issue regulations that 
     require that each entity sponsoring a child care facility in 
     an executive facility, upon receipt by the child care 
     facility or the entity (as applicable) of a request by any 
     individual who is a parent of any child enrolled at the 
     facility, a parent of a child for whom an application has 
     been submitted to enroll at the facility, or an employee of 
     the facility, shall provide to the individual--
       (A) copies of all notifications of deficiencies that have 
     been provided in the past with respect to the facility under 
     clause (i)(III) or (ii)(III), as applicable, of paragraph 
     (4)(B); and
       (B) a description of the actions that were taken to correct 
     the deficiencies.
       (c) Legislative Branch Standards and Compliance.--

[[Page 715]]

       (1) State and local licensing requirements, health, safety, 
     and facility standards, and accreditation standards.--
       (A) In general.--The Chief Administrative Officer of the 
     House of Representatives shall issue regulations, approved by 
     the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 
     Representatives, governing the operation of the House of 
     Representatives Child Care Center. The Librarian of Congress 
     shall issue regulations, approved by the appropriate House 
     and Senate committees with jurisdiction over the Library of 
     Congress, governing the operation of the child care center 
     located at the Library of Congress. Subject to paragraph (3), 
     the head of a designated entity in the Senate shall issue 
     regulations, approved by the Committee on Rules and 
     Administration of the Senate, governing the operation of the 
     Senate Employees' Child Care Center.
       (B) Stringency.--The regulations described in subparagraph 
     (A) shall be no less stringent in content and effect than the 
     requirements of subsection (b)(1) and the regulations issued 
     by the Administrator under paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
     subsection (b), except to the extent that appropriate 
     administrative officers, with the approval of the appropriate 
     House or Senate committees with oversight responsibility for 
     the centers, may jointly or independently determine, for good 
     cause shown and stated together with the regulations, that a 
     modification of such regulations would be more effective for 
     the implementation of the requirements and standards 
     described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (b) 
     for child care facilities, and entities sponsoring child care 
     facilities, in the corresponding legislative facilities.
       (2) Evaluation and compliance.--
       (A) Administration.--Subject to paragraph (3), the Chief 
     Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, the 
     head of the designated Senate entity, and the Librarian of 
     Congress, shall have the same authorities and duties--
       (i) with respect to the evaluation of, compliance of, and 
     cost reimbursement for child care facilities, and entities 
     sponsoring child care facilities, in the corresponding 
     legislative facilities as the Administrator has under 
     subsection (b)(4) with respect to the evaluation of, 
     compliance of, and cost reimbursement for such facilities and 
     entities sponsoring such facilities, in executive facilities; 
     and
       (ii) with respect to issuing regulations requiring the 
     entities sponsoring child care facilities in the 
     corresponding legislative facilities to provide notifications 
     of deficiencies and descriptions of corrective actions as the 
     Administrator has under subsection (b)(5) with respect to 
     issuing regulations requiring the entities sponsoring child 
     care facilities in executive facilities to provide 
     notifications of deficiencies and descriptions of corrective 
     actions.
       (B) Enforcement.--Subject to paragraph (3), the Committee 
     on House Oversight of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, as 
     appropriate, shall have the same authorities and duties with 
     respect to the compliance of and cost reimbursement for child 
     care facilities, and entities sponsoring child care 
     facilities, in the corresponding legislative facilities as 
     the head of an Executive agency has under subsection (b)(4) 
     with respect to the compliance of and cost reimbursement for 
     such facilities and entities sponsoring such facilities, in 
     executive facilities.
       (3) Interim status.--Until such time as the Committee on 
     Rules and Administration of the Senate establishes, or the 
     head of the designated Senate entity establishes, standards 
     described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (b) 
     governing the operation of the Senate Employees' Child Care 
     Center, such facility shall maintain current accreditation 
     status.
       (d) Judicial Branch Standards and Compliance.--
       (1) State and local licensing requirements, health, safety, 
     and facility standards, and accreditation standards.--The 
     Director of the Administrative Office of the United States 
     Courts shall issue regulations for child care facilities, and 
     entities sponsoring child care facilities, in judicial 
     facilities, which shall be no less stringent in content and 
     effect than the requirements of subsection (b)(1) and the 
     regulations issued by the Administrator under paragraphs (2) 
     and (3) of subsection (b), except to the extent that the 
     Director may determine, for good cause shown and stated 
     together with the regulations, that a modification of such 
     regulations would be more effective for the implementation of 
     the requirements and standards described in paragraphs (1), 
     (2), and (3) of subsection (b) for child care facilities, and 
     entities sponsoring child care facilities, in judicial 
     facilities.
       (2) Evaluation and compliance.--
       (A) Director of the administrative office of the united 
     states courts.--The Director of the Administrative Office of 
     the United States Courts shall have the same authorities and 
     duties--
       (i) with respect to the evaluation of, compliance of, and 
     cost reimbursement for child care facilities, and entities 
     sponsoring child care facilities, in judicial facilities as 
     the Administrator has under subsection (b)(4) with respect to 
     the evaluation of, compliance of, and cost reimbursement for 
     such facilities and entities sponsoring such facilities, in 
     executive facilities; and
       (ii) with respect to issuing regulations requiring the 
     entities sponsoring child care facilities in the judicial 
     facilities to provide notifications of deficiencies and 
     descriptions of corrective actions as the Administrator has 
     under subsection (b)(5) with respect to issuing regulations 
     requiring the entities sponsoring child care facilities in 
     executive facilities to provide notifications of deficiencies 
     and descriptions of corrective actions.
       (B) Head of a judicial office.--The head of a judicial 
     office shall have the same authorities and duties with 
     respect to the compliance of and cost reimbursement for child 
     care facilities, and entities sponsoring child care 
     facilities, in judicial facilities as the head of an 
     Executive agency has under subsection (b)(4) with respect to 
     the compliance of and cost reimbursement for such facilities 
     and entities sponsoring such facilities, in executive 
     facilities.
       (e) Application.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, if 8 or more child care facilities are 
     sponsored in facilities owned or leased by an Executive 
     agency, the Administrator shall delegate to the head of the 
     agency the evaluation and compliance responsibilities 
     assigned to the Administrator under subsection (b)(4)(A).
       (f) Technical Assistance, Studies, and Reviews.--The 
     Administrator may provide technical assistance, and conduct 
     and provide the results of studies and reviews, for Executive 
     agencies, and entities sponsoring child care facilities in 
     executive facilities, on a reimbursable basis, in order to 
     assist the entities in complying with this section. The Chief 
     Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, the 
     Librarian of Congress, the head of the designated Senate 
     entity described in subsection (c), and the Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts may provide 
     technical assistance, and conduct and provide the results of 
     studies and reviews, or request that the Administrator 
     provide technical assistance, and conduct and provide the 
     results of studies and reviews, for the corresponding 
     legislative offices and judicial offices, and entities 
     operating child care facilities in the corresponding 
     legislative facilities and judicial facilities, on a 
     reimbursable basis, in order to assist the entities in 
     complying with this section.
       (g) Council.--The Administrator shall establish an 
     interagency council, comprised of representatives of all 
     Executive agencies that are entities sponsoring child care 
     facilities, a representative of the Chief Administrative 
     Officer of the House of Representatives, a representative of 
     the designated Senate entity described in subsection (c), a 
     representative of the Librarian of Congress, and a 
     representative of the Administrative Office of the United 
     States Courts, to facilitate cooperation and sharing of best 
     practices, and to develop and coordinate policy, regarding 
     the provision of child care, including the provision of areas 
     for nursing mothers and other lactation support facilities 
     and services, in the Federal Government.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $900,000 for 
     fiscal year 2000 and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     subsequent fiscal year.

     SEC. 603. CHILD CARE SERVICES FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--In addition to services authorized to be 
     provided by an agency of the United States pursuant to 
     section 616 of Public Law 100-202 (40 U.S.C. 490b), an 
     Executive agency that provides or proposes to provide child 
     care services for Federal employees may use agency funds to 
     provide the child care services, in a facility that is owned 
     or leased by an Executive agency, or through a contractor, 
     for civilian employees of such agency.
       (b) Affordability.--Funds so used with respect to any such 
     facility or contractor shall be applied to improve the 
     affordability of child care for lower income Federal 
     employees using or seeking to use the child care services 
     offered by such facility or contractor.
       (c) Regulations.--The Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management, and the Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration, shall, within 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, jointly issue regulations necessary to 
     carry out this section.
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Executive agency'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 105 of title 5, United States Code, but does not 
     include the General Accounting Office.

     SEC. 604. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO CHILD CARE 
                   PROVIDED BY FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) Availability of Federal Child Care Centers for Onsite 
     Contractors; Percentage Goal.--Section 616(a) of Public Law 
     100-202 (40 U.S.C. 490b(a)) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(2) such officer or agency determines that such space 
     will be used to provide child care and related services to--
       ``(A) children of Federal employees or onsite Federal 
     contractors; or
       ``(B) dependent children who live with Federal employees or 
     onsite Federal contractors; and

[[Page 716]]

       ``(3) such officer or agency determines that such 
     individual or entity will give priority for available child 
     care and related services in such space to Federal employees 
     and onsite Federal contractors.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e)(1)(A) The Administrator of General Services shall 
     confirm that at least 50 percent of aggregate enrollment in 
     Federal child care centers governmentwide are children of 
     Federal employees or onsite Federal contractors, or dependent 
     children who live with Federal employees or onsite Federal 
     contractors.
       ``(B) Each provider of child care services at an individual 
     Federal child care center shall maintain 50 percent of the 
     enrollment at the center of children described under 
     subparagraph (A) as a goal for enrollment at the center.
       ``(C) If enrollment at a center does not meet the 
     percentage goal under subparagraph (B), the provider shall 
     develop and implement a business plan with the sponsoring 
     Federal agency to achieve the goal within a reasonable 
     timeframe. Such plan shall be approved by the Administrator 
     of General Services based on--
       ``(i) compliance of the plan with standards established by 
     the Administrator; and
       ``(ii) the effect of the plan on achieving the aggregate 
     Federal enrollment percentage goal.
       ``(2) The Administrator of General Services Administration 
     may enter into public-private partnerships or contracts with 
     nongovernmental entities to increase the capacity, quality, 
     affordability, or range of child care and related services 
     and may, on a demonstration basis, waive subsection (a)(3) 
     and paragraph (1) of this subsection.''.
       (b) Payment of Costs of Training Programs.--Section 
     616(b)(3) of such Public Law (40 U.S.C. 490b(b)(3)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) If an agency has a child care facility in its space, 
     or is a sponsoring agency for a child care facility in other 
     Federal or leased space, the agency or the General Services 
     Administration may pay accreditation fees, including renewal 
     fees, for that center to be accredited. Any agency, 
     department, or instrumentality of the United States that 
     provides or proposes to provide child care services for 
     children referred to in subsection (a)(2), may reimburse any 
     Federal employee or any person employed to provide such 
     services for the costs of training programs, conferences, and 
     meetings and related travel, transportation, and subsistence 
     expenses incurred in connection with those activities. Any 
     per diem allowance made under this section shall not exceed 
     the rate specified in regulations prescribed under section 
     5707 of title 5, United States Code.''.
       (c) Provision of Child Care by Private Entities.--Section 
     616(d) of such Public Law (40 U.S.C. 490b(d)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(d)(1) If a Federal agency has a child care facility in 
     its space, or is a sponsoring agency for a child care 
     facility in other Federal or leased space, the agency, the 
     child care center board of directors, or the General Services 
     Administration may enter into an agreement with 1 or more 
     private entities under which such private entities would 
     assist in defraying the general operating expenses of the 
     child care providers including salaries and tuition 
     assistance programs at the facility.
       ``(2)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a 
     Federal agency does not have a child care program, or if the 
     Administrator of General Services has identified a need for 
     child care for Federal employees at an agency providing child 
     care services that do not meet the requirements of subsection 
     (a), the agency or the Administrator may enter into an 
     agreement with a non-Federal, licensed, and accredited child 
     care facility, or a planned child care facility that will 
     become licensed and accredited, for the provision of child 
     care services for children of Federal employees.
       ``(B) Before entering into an agreement, the head of the 
     Federal agency shall determine that child care services to be 
     provided through the agreement are more cost effectively 
     provided through such arrangement than through establishment 
     of a Federal child care facility.
       ``(C) The agency may provide any of the services described 
     in subsection (b)(3) if, in exchange for such services, the 
     facility reserves child care spaces for children referred to 
     in subsection (a)(2), as agreed to by the parties. The cost 
     of any such services provided by an agency to a child care 
     facility on behalf of another agency shall be reimbursed by 
     the receiving agency.
       ``(3) This subsection does not apply to residential child 
     care programs.''.
       (d) Pilot Projects.--Section 616 of such Public Law (40 
     U.S.C. 490b) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f)(1) Upon approval of the agency head, an agency may 
     conduct a pilot project not otherwise authorized by law for 
     no more than 2 years to test innovative approaches to 
     providing alternative forms of quality child care assistance 
     for Federal employees. An agency head may extend a pilot 
     project for an additional 2-year period. Before any pilot 
     project may be implemented, a determination shall be made by 
     the agency head that initiating the pilot project would be 
     more cost-effective than establishing a new child care 
     facility. Costs of any pilot project shall be borne solely by 
     the agency conducting the pilot project.
       ``(2) The Administrator of General Services shall serve as 
     an information clearinghouse for pilot projects initiated by 
     other agencies to disseminate information concerning the 
     pilot projects to the other agencies.
       ``(3) Within 6 months after completion of the initial 2-
     year pilot project period, an agency conducting a pilot 
     project under this subsection shall provide for an evaluation 
     of the impact of the project on the delivery of child care 
     services to Federal employees, and shall submit the results 
     of the evaluation to the Administrator of General Services. 
     The Administrator shall share the results with other Federal 
     agencies.''.
       (e) Background Check.--Section 616 of such Public Law (40 
     U.S.C. 490b) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Each child care center located in a federally owned 
     or leased facility shall ensure that each employee of such 
     center (including any employee whose employment began before 
     the date of enactment of this subsection) shall undergo a 
     criminal history background check consistent with section 231 
     of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13041).''.

     SEC. 605. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE LACTATION SUPPORT IN NEW 
                   FEDERAL CHILD CARE FACILITIES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``Federal 
     agency'', ``executive facility'', ``judicial facility'', and 
     ``legislative facility'' have the meanings given the terms in 
     section 602.
       (b) Lactation Support.--The head of each Federal agency 
     shall require that each child care facility in an executive 
     facility or a legislative facility that is first operated 
     after the 1-year period beginning on the date of enactment of 
     this Act by the Federal agency, or under a contract or 
     licensing agreement with the Federal agency, shall provide 
     reasonable accommodations for the needs of breast-fed infants 
     and their mothers, including providing a lactation area or a 
     room for nursing mothers in part of the operating plan for 
     the facility.

     SEC. 606. FEDERAL CHILD CARE EVALUATION.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``executive 
     facility'', ``judicial facility'', and ``legislative 
     facility'' have the meanings given the terms in section 602.
       (b) Evaluation.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the General 
     Services Administration and the Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management, shall jointly prepare and submit to 
     Congress a report that contains an evaluation, including--
       (1) information on the number of children utilizing child 
     care in an executive facility, legislative facility, or 
     judicial facility, including such children who are age 6 
     through 12, analyzed by age;
       (2) information on the number of families not utilizing 
     child care described in paragraph (1) because of cost; and
       (3) recommendations for improving the quality and cost 
     effectiveness of child care described in paragraph (1), 
     including options for creating an optimal organizational 
     structure and best practices for the delivery of such child 
     care.
                                  ____


                       STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

       Tonight, in my State of the Union address, I will outline 
     my agenda to help parents struggling to meet their 
     responsibilities at work and at home. This agenda includes an 
     ambitious initiative to make child care safer, better, and 
     more affordable for America's working families. Today, 
     Senator Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) and many of his Democratic 
     colleagues in the Senate have taken an important step toward 
     reaching that goal by introducing the Affordable Child Care 
     for Early Success and Security Act (A.C.C.E.S.S.).
       This proposal, like mine, significantly increases child 
     care subsidies for poor children, provides greater tax relief 
     to help low- and middle-income families pay for child care 
     and to support parents who chose to stay at home to care for 
     their young children. This plan dramatically increases after-
     school opportunities, encourages businesses to provide child 
     care for their employees, promotes early learning and school 
     readiness, and improves child care quality.
       The Child Care A.C.C.E.S.S. Act builds on the longstanding 
     commitment of Senator Dodd and the co-sponsors of this 
     legislation to improving child care for our Nation's 
     children. I look forward to working with Members of Congress 
     in both parties to enact child care legislation this year 
     that will help Americans fulfill their responsibilities as 
     workers, and, even more importantly, as parents.
                                  ____

       Dear Senator Dodd:  The Children's Defense Fund welcomes 
     the introduction of the ACCESS Act. If enacted, it would not 
     only provide significant help to families with young and 
     school-age children, but would also provide communities with 
     important new resources to improve the quality of child care. 
     It would represent a major step by the Congress to recognize 
     the importance of child care in helping to ensure that 
     children

[[Page 717]]

     begin school ready to succeed and that parents can work and 
     be independent.
       Thank you for your continued leadership on behalf of 
     children. We look forward to working with you towards the 
     passage of this landmark bill.
           Sincerely yours,
     Marian Wright Edelman.
                                  ____

       Dear Senator Dodd: We are writing to express our 
     enthusiastic support for your comprehensive child care 
     legislation, the Affordable Child Care for Early Success and 
     Security (``ACCESS'') Act. As an organization that has been 
     working for over 25 years to improve economic security for 
     women, we know the profound interest that women and their 
     families have in the enactment of effective child care 
     policies. At a time when seven out of ten American women with 
     children work in the paid labor force, it is more critical 
     than ever that families have access to affordable, high-
     quality child care that will help their children learn and 
     grow.
       The child care package you are proposing represents a much-
     needed new investment in affordable, high-quality child care 
     for America's families. The new funding your bill would add 
     to the Child Care and Development Block Grant will help 
     expand the supply of quality care, especially for infants and 
     toddlers, as well as increase the range of options for the 
     care of school-age children. Your bill's expansion of the 
     Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, particularly by making 
     the credit refundable, would be of significant assistance in 
     making child care more affordable for millions of families.
       We believe that this Congress presents an extraordinary 
     opportunity to move forward on child care, and we hope that 
     members of both parties in both Houses of Congress will come 
     together to make it happen. Your legislation is a major step 
     toward that goal, and we look forward to working with you in 
     the days to come.
           Sincerely,
     Nancy Duff Campbell,
       Co-President.
     Judith C. Appelbaum,
       Vice President and Director of Employment Opportunity.
     Cristina Firvida,
       Counsel.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Johnson, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Leahy, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Moynihan, 
        and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 18. A bill to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the 
Poultry Products Inspection Act to provide for improved public health 
and food safety through enhanced enforcement; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                       safer meat and poultry act

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce S. 18 as part of 
the Democratic package, the SAFER Meat and Poultry Act, a bill that 
will make meat and poultry products safer for our families and our 
children. The bill provisions are simple, obvious authorities the USDA 
needs to assure that meat and poultry products are as safe as possible.
  In 1998, we had a record 13 recalls for deadly E. coli 0157:H7, 
involving more than 2 million pounds of meat products. Tragically, just 
over the recent holidays, a nationwide outbreak of Listeria was 
recognized, leading to the massive recall of hotdogs and cold cuts. At 
least a dozen people lost their lives during that outbreak just over 
the recent holiday season.
  Just last Friday, another recall for Listeria was announced. So 
despite the progress we have made in controlling some foodborne 
pathogens through improved meat inspection laws, problems with other 
pathogens may be getting worse.
  Mr. President, the bill really is targeted at kids, because it is our 
kids who are the most vulnerable. And this chart shows that. These are 
the numbers of cases just for the State of Iowa. And as you see by age, 
here is the number of cases. Here are the ages: 0 to 5, 6 to 10, up to 
80 years of age. You can see, the bulk of the illnesses from foodborne 
pathogens happens when you are less than 6 years of age--our kids who 
have not built up the immunity that they need that get the sickest from 
these foodborne pathogens. This is for Salmonella, E. coli, and 
Campylobacter. It is really necessary to protect our children from 
these pathogens.
  S. 18 strengthens our laws in a number of ways. One is to give the 
Secretary of Agriculture the authority to mandate a recall. Most people 
assume that the Secretary has this authority, but he does not. Some 
argue that a packer or distributor will recall the tainted meat 
voluntarily, but recalls don't always go smoothly.
  In June of last year, a company challenged the USDA on a Federal test 
for E. coli. The Federal test showed E. coli was there. The company 
said no, it was not. They contested it. And, therefore, valuable time 
was lost in recalling that meat product.
  Consumers were shocked in 1997 by the largest recall in history, when 
a Hudson plant recalled 25 million pounds of ground beef linked to 
illnesses.
  When the Secretary of Agriculture is given recall authority, he can 
mandate what tasks must be done and whose responsibility these tasks 
will be. Communication is the most essential element of a timely 
recall.
  Another provision of the bill gives the Secretary the authority to 
levy civil fines for violations of meat and poultry laws. Right now, 
all the Secretary can do is close a plant down. That may not be the 
wisest course of action. You have people working there. It would put 
people out of work. The problem may not be their fault at all.
  Last year, the USDA referred dozens of cases for criminal prosecution 
for violation of meat and poultry laws. So clearly the current 
authorities are not an adequate incentive to protect consumer safety.
  I have here a chart, Mr. President, that shows what civil penalty 
authority the Secretary has. For example, if there is an introduction 
of an animal disease anywhere in the United States, the Secretary of 
Agriculture can levy a fine. If you mistreat an animal, you can be 
fined by the Secretary of Agriculture. If you have a deceptive 
practice, if you violate the Pecan Promotion Act, you can be fined by 
the Secretary of Agriculture. But if you violate the food safety laws, 
you cannot be fined.
  Civil fines are consistent with the new HACCP regulation for meat and 
poultry processing, and provide a ``just right'' option for the 
Secretary to assure compliance with food safety laws.
  What the Secretary has is an atom bomb. He can drop the atom bomb and 
close the plant down, which may not be the best course of action, but 
he cannot levy a civil fine, which may be the best action for certain 
violations.
  Finally, the bill requires, Mr. President, that someone who knows 
about a contaminated food product, other than a consumer, must notify 
the Secretary of Agriculture. These are commonsense authorities.
  Last year we saw a 50% increase in outbreaks, and a record number of 
recalls for the deadly E. coli O157-H7 in ground beef. More and more 
testing is done by grocery stores, and by purchasers for school lunch 
programs and restaurant chains. This bill would require that these 
parties notify the Secretary of Agriculture when there is a positive 
test. This law would allow public health authorities to oversee a 
recall that is timely and complete, and truly protects people from 
devastating illness.
  These are common sense authorities that most consumers assume the 
Secretary already has. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting 
this important piece of food safety legislation.
  I also wish to indicate my strong support for legislation introduced 
today that will help restore and enhance farm income protection. Our 
farm sector, including livestock and crop production, is experiencing 
one of the worst downturns in over a decade. Pork producers have just 
experienced the worst real hog prices in history. There's a critical 
need for Congress to respond to this financial crisis that is 
threatening the livelihoods and life savings of America's farm 
families, and eroding the economies of rural communities.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this good, important 
piece of food safety legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a sponsor of this 
important bill, and I commend Senator Harkin for his leadership on this 
issue. With the high incidence of foodborne

[[Page 718]]

illnesses, it is essential for regulatory agencies to have the 
authority necessary to prevent or minimize outbreaks of these 
illnesses, and combat food contamination.
  Microbial contamination of food is an increasing problem. The 
emergence of highly virulent strains of common bacteria, such as E. 
coli 0157, is a significant cause of foodborne illnesses. Common 
infections that were once easily treatable are now a major public 
health threat, as the microorganisms acquire the ability to resist 
destruction by antibiotics.
  The current enforcement authority of the Department of Agriculture is 
not sufficient. Our bill gives the Secretary of Agriculture the 
additional authority he needs in order to recall adulterated or 
misbranded meat or poultry products, and to assess civil penalties 
against processors who repeatedly violate meat and poultry safety 
standards. Most processors comply responsibly with USDA requests for 
voluntary recalls of unsafe products. This additional authority will 
ensure more timely and comprehensive removal of potentially dangerous 
foods from supermarket shelves.
  Such new enforcement tools are necessary to improve food safety in 
general and to reduce the risk of future outbreaks of foodborne 
illnesses. Families across the country deserve to have confidence that 
the meat and poultry they eat are safe, and I look forward to early 
action by Congress on this important legislation.
  Assurance of safe meat and poultry is just one part of the challenge 
of guaranteeing safe food. The safety of produce and of processed food, 
including imported food, is the responsibility of the Food and Drug 
Administration and a major part of President Clinton's Food Safety 
Initiative. I plan to develop legislation, in cooperation with other 
Senators, to ensure that no matter where our food is grown, processed, 
or packaged, it meets uniform high standards of safety.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Baucus, Mr. 
        Levin, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Torricelli, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mr. Breaux, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Sarbanes, 
        Mr. Durbin, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Bryan, and Mr. Moynihan):
  S. 20. A bill to assist the States and local governments in assessing 
and remediating brownfield sites and encouraging environmental cleanup 
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.


         the brownfields and environmental cleanup act of 1999

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Daschle, 
Baucus, Reid, Boxer, Wyden, Breaux, Bryan, Levin, Murray, Schumer, 
Torricelli, Mikulski, Durbin, Leahy, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Kennedy, 
and Lieberman, I am introducing the Brownfields and Environmental 
Cleanup Act of 1999. This legislation is designed to foster the cleanup 
of potentially thousands of toxic waste sites across the country. Just 
as importantly, this bill is about jobs, revenue and economic 
opportunity, because it will help turn abandoned industrial sites into 
engines of economic development.
  Mr. President, I have been interested for a long time now in the 
issue of these abandoned, underutilized and contaminated industrial 
sites, commonly known as brownfields. Our Nation's great industrial 
tradition was the lifeblood of our Nation's economy. But this 
industrial tradition also entailed tremendous environmental costs. 
Sites were contaminated, and then when the manufacturers, the companies 
left, the legacy remained behind. Today, decaying industrial plants 
define the skyline and contaminate the land in many of our urban areas. 
Their rusting frames, like aging skyscrapers, are a silent reminder of 
those manufacturers that left, taking inner-city jobs and often inner-
city hope with them.
  However, ``brownfields'' as we have come to know them, can be found 
anywhere--in the inner cities, the suburbs and in rural areas. Any time 
that an industry leaves an area or a business goes out of business we 
face the specter of the unknown--they contaminate not only the 
aesthetics of the area but also the opportunity for jobs and for 
business investment. This bill provides the means to help investigate 
and facilitate funding for the cleanup of these areas, wherever they 
are found.
  I continue to feel as I did when I introduced similar legislation in 
1993, 1996, and again in 1997, that a brownfields cleanup program can 
spur significant economic development and create jobs. The nation's 
mayors have estimated that they lose between $200 and $500 million a 
year in tax revenues from brownfields sitting idle, and that returning 
these sites to productive use could create some 236,000 new jobs. Each 
day that Congress fails to act on brownfields liability, it deprives 
our cities of unique redevelopment opportunities. This type of cleanup 
initiative makes good environmental sense and good business sense.
  A pilot project in Cleveland resulted in $3.2 million in private 
investment, a $1 million increase on the local tax base, and more than 
170 new jobs. In Elizabeth, NJ, a former municipal landfill is being 
turned into a major mall with 5,000 employees.
  Mr. President, the potential for job creation across the country is 
enormous, and every revitalized brownfields may represent for someone a 
field of dreams, especially to an unemployed urban worker.
  But this bill is not about jobs alone. Brownfield cleanup also means 
that dangerous contaminants are removed from our environment, and 
future generations are not left with unknown problems and unused 
properties.
  On the other hand, the risks posed by many of these sites may be 
relatively low and others even nonexistent, because brownfields are 
often abandoned or underutilized industrial or commercial sites where 
expansion or redevelopment is complicated by just the perception of 
environmental contamination. But their full economic use is being 
stymied because there is no ready mechanism for getting them evaluated 
or, if necessary, cleaned up, even when the owner of the property is 
ready, willing and eager to do so.
  In addition, prospective purchasers and developers are reluctant to 
get involved in transactions with these properties because of their 
concern, however minimal, they might potentially create environmental 
liability.
  The challenge is to turn these abandoned properties into thriving 
businesses that can generate needed jobs and act as a catalyst for 
economic development.
  My legislation would provide financial assistance in the form of 
grants to local and State governments to inventory and evaluate 
brownfields sites. This would enable interested parties to know what 
would be required to clean the site and what reuse would best suit the 
property.
  My bill would also provide grants to State and local governments to 
establish and capitalize low-interest loan programs. These funds would 
be loaned to prospective purchasers, municipalities and others to 
facilitate voluntary cleanup actions where traditional lending 
mechanisms may not be available. The minimum seed money involved in the 
program would leverage substantial economic payoffs, as well as turning 
lands which may be of negative worth into assets for the future.
  The bill also would limit the potential liability of innocent buyers 
of these properties, and it would set a standard to gauge when parties 
couldn't have reasonably known that the property was contaminated. It 
would also provide Superfund liability relief to persons who own 
property next door to a brownfields property, so long as the person did 
not cause the release and exercises appropriate care.
  Mr. President, for several Congresses there has been bipartisan 
interest in addressing brownfields, both in the Senate and in the other 
body on the other side of the Capitol. I am hopeful we can move this 
legislation forward in a cooperative way with support of Members on 
both sides of the aisle.
  I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be 
printed in the Record.

[[Page 719]]

  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Brownfields and Environmental Cleanup Act of 1999--Summary

  Provides funds to local governments and others for brownfield site 
assessment and cleanup; and provides liability relief for prospective 
purchasers, innocent landowners and contiguous property owners.


                      Title I: Brownfields Cleanup

  Authorizes $35 million per year from the Superfund for 5 years for 
grants to local governments, States and Indian tribes to inventory and 
assess the contamination at brownfields sites; and authorizes $50 
million per year from the Superfund for 5 years for local governments, 
States and Indian tribes to capitalize revolving loan funds for cleanup 
of brownfield sites.


                    Title II: Prospective Purchasers

  Provides Superfund liability relief for prospective purchasers of 
sites who are not responsible for contamination and do not impede the 
performance of a cleanup or restoration at a site they acquire after 
enactment of this bill, provided that prior to acquisition they made 
all appropriate inquiry into prior uses and ownership of the facility, 
exercise appropriate care with respect to hazardous substances, and 
provide cooperation and access to persons authorized to clean up the 
site.


                     Title III: Innocent Landowners

  Clarifies relief from Superfund liability for landowners who had no 
reason to know of contamination at the time or purchase, despite having 
made all appropriate inquiry into prior ownership and use of the 
facility. Provides that the ``appropriate inquiry'' requirement is 
satisfied by conducting an environmental site assessment that meets 
specified standards within 180 days prior to acquisition of the 
property.


                  Title IV: Contiguous property owners

  Provides Superfund liability relief for persons who own or operate 
property that is contaminated solely due to a release from contiguous 
property, so long as the person did not cause or contribute to the 
release, and exercised appropriate care with respect to hazardous 
substances.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Kerrey):
  S. 21. A bill to reduce social security payroll taxes, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                  Social Security Solvency Act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, in reintroducing legislation that would 
preserve Social Security and make it solvent permanently, while 
providing a payroll tax cut of about $800 billion over the next ten 
years.
  Last March, Senator Kerrey and I introduced a nearly identical bill--
S. 1792, The Social Security Solvency Act of 1998. And in July of 1998 
Senators Gregg and Breaux introduced S. 2313, The 21st Century 
Retirement Security Plan, with a companion bill introduced in the House 
by Congressmen Koble and Stenholm. All of these bills attempt to steer 
a mid-course between those who seek to maintain the current system 
(albeit with some traditional modifications of payroll tax rates and 
benefits) and those who seek to replace Social Security with private 
accounts. The Moynihan/Kerrey and Gregg/Breaux/Koble/Stenholm bills are 
quite similar. In September of last year I, along with Senators Gregg, 
Breaux, Kerrey, Coats, Robb, Thomas, and Thompson formed a Bipartisan 
Social Security Coalition. In a ``Dear Colleague'' we argued that a 
number of principles have guided us in our efforts to build a consensus 
on the future of Social Security including:
  A payroll tax cut for all working Americans, with an opportunity for 
all workers to invest in personal savings account; payroll tax rates 
set so that annual revenues closely match annual outlays throughout the 
actuarial valuation period; a progressive benefit formula; accurate 
cost-of-living adjustments; repeal of the earnings test so that 
beneficiaries are free to work while collecting benefits; and permanent 
solvency for the Social Security program with a reduction in the 
Federal Government's unfunded liabilities.
  For those who care, as we do, about preserving this vital program, I 
would simply suggest that without these changes, Social Security as we 
know it will not survive. For some 20 years now, opinion polls have 
shown that a majority of non-retired adults do not believe they will 
get their Social Security when they retire. Ask anyone on the street; 
ask anyone in their thirties or forties. They are convinced that Social 
Security will not be there for them. In one sense, they have good 
reason to think so: the Social Security Trustees so state in their most 
recent annual report released in April, 1998, which pointedly notes 
that:

       * * * in 2034, tax income of OASI (Social Security) is 
     estimated to be sufficient to pay about \3/4\ of program 
     costs; that ratio is projected to decline to about \2/3\ by 
     the end of the projection period.

  Lack of confidence is partially the result of neglect by a Social 
Security Administration that has made little effort to stay in touch 
with Americans before retirement. But there is also a more powerful 
influence at work: a serious ideological movement opposed to government 
social insurance as a threat to individual initiative and, indeed, 
liberty. There is now abroad a powerful set of distinguished political 
leaders and academics who would turn the 60-year-old system of Social 
Security retirement, disability, and survivors benefits over to a 
system that depends solely on personal savings invested in the market.
  This is a legitimate idea, with respectable intellectual support. 
(One thinks of the energetic work of Martin Feldstein, who 20 years ago 
argued that ``Social Security significantly depresses private wealth 
accumulation.'') It is an idea that has gained world-wide recognition. 
Since 1988, workers in the United Kingdom had been permitted to opt out 
of a part of the Social Security system, if they sign up for some 
personal retirement savings plans similar to our IRAs or 401(k) 
arrangements. In Sweden, the model welfare state, a pension reform plan 
that includes a mandatory private pension component equal to 2.5 
percent of earnings went into effect this year, after being enacted by 
a coalition government composed of Social Democrats and other left of 
center parties.
  As the 1990s arrived, and with it the long stock market boom, the 
call for privatization of Social Security has all but drowned out the 
more traditional views. For the first time, something akin to 
abolishing Social Security becamer a possibility.
  Don't think it couldn't happen. In 1996, we enacted legislation which 
abolished Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, Aid to Families with 
Dependent Children. The mothers' pension of the progressive era, 
incorporated in the 1935 legislation, vanished with scarcely a word of 
protest.
  Will the Old Age pensions and survivors benefits disappear as well? 
What might once have seemed inconceivable is now somewhere between 
possible and probable. I, for one, hope that this will not happen. A 
minimum retirement guarantee, along with disability and survivors 
benefits, is surely something we ought to keep, even as we augment the 
basic guarantee--as both the U.K and Sweden have done--with some form 
of private accounts.
  Here is what Senator Bob Kerrey and I proposed, in the legislation 
that we are reintroducing today.
  Our bill makes changes that will preserve Social Security and make it 
solvent indefinitely. Under our plan, private accounts would complement 
Social Security, not replace it. Markets go up, but they also, as we 
made painfully clear last summer, frequently go down. But even with 
fluctuations in markets there are ways to safeguard private accounts. 
Working with the Securities and Exchange Commission and those in the 
securities industry we believe that it is possible to provide private 
savings instruments that meet the needs of workers planning for their 
retirement, and that are reasonably secure, with diminimus 
administrative costs.
  We believe that the best approach to retirement savings in the 21st 
century is a three-tier system founded on the basic Social Security 
annuity. To

[[Page 720]]

which is added one's private pension--which about half of Americans now 
enjoy--and one's private savings.
  Our plan would return Social Security to a pay-as-you-go system. This 
makes possible an immediate payroll tax cut of approximately $800 
billion over the next 10 years, as payroll tax rates would be cut from 
12.4 to 10.4 percent.
  The bill would permit voluntary personal savings accounts, which 
workers could finance with the proceeds of the two percentage point cut 
in the payroll tax. Under this provision in our legislation--together 
with a total of $3,500 deposited in an individual's account at birth 
and at ages 1-5 under the Kidsave provision of the bill--all workers 
will be able to accumulate an estate which they can pass on to their 
children and grandchildren.
  Our plan includes a one percentage point correction in cost of living 
adjustments for all indexed programs except Supplemental Security 
Income. Benefits are also adjusted to reflect projected increases in 
life expectancy, similar to what has just been adopted in Sweden.
  It is worth digressing here to note that under current law the so-
called normal retirement age (NRA) is scheduled to gradually increase 
from 65 to 67. In practice, the NRA, is important as a benchmark for 
determining the monthly benefit amount, but it does not reflect the 
actual age at which workers receive retirement benefits. More than 70 
percent of workers begin collecting Social Security retirement benefits 
before they reach age 65, and more than 50 percent do so at age 62. 
Under the bill, workers can continue to receive benefits at age 62 and 
the provision in the 1983 Social Security amendments that increased the 
NRA to age 67 is repealed. Instead, under this legislation, if life 
expectancy increases the level of benefits payable at age 65 (or at the 
age at which the worker actually retires) decreases. (Sweden has 
adopted a similar provision allowing workers to continue to retire at 
age 61, even as monthly benefits are reduced to mirror the projected 
gradual increase in life expectancy.)
  We also propose to eliminate the so-called earnings test, which 
reduces Social Security benefits for retirees who have wages 
significantly above $10,000 per year, and is a burden and annoyance to 
persons who wish to work after age 62.
  Finally, Social Security benefits would be taxed to the same extent 
private pensions are taxed, with the provision phased-in over the 5 
year period 2000-2004. And Social Security coverage would be extended 
to newly hired employees in currently excluded State and local 
positions.
  This package of changes ensures the long-run solvency of Social 
Security while reducing payroll taxes by almost $800 billion over the 
next decade, and with little or no change in the Federal budget 
surplus. Beginning in the year 2030, payroll tax rates would increase 
gradually to cover growing outlays, and would rise only slightly above 
the current level in the year 2035.
  Can this be done? From an actuarial perspective, it's easy. We know--
or at least the actuaries can tell us--within a couple of million 
persons how many workers will be supporting how many retirees in 2050. 
Contrast this with Medicare, where you do not know where gene therapy 
will lead in three years, let alone 30 years. The 17 members of the 
National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, ably chaired 
by Senator Breaux, can, I am sure, attest to the analytic complexity of 
the issues they are discussing as part of that important Commission's 
work.
  Politically, however, it won't be easy to fix Social Security. In a 
manner that the late economist Mancur Olson would recognize, over time 
Social Security has acquired a goodly number of veto groups which 
prevent changes, howsoever necessary. In so doing they also undermine 
confidence in Social Security by supporting a promised level of 
benefits which the Trustees, as noted above, readily admit cannot be 
delivered.
  The veto groups assert that the Moynihan-Kerrey bill will reduce 
benefits by 30 percent. Not true when compared to what actually can be 
delivered. With pay-as-you-go, and adjustments in benefits related to 
an accurate cost of living index and the increase in life expectancy, 
the Moynihan-Kerrey bill delivers higher benefits than Social Security 
can actually provide with projected tax revenues under current law. For 
example, in 2040 the Social Security actuaries estimate that the 
current program can only deliver 73 percent of promised benefits. We do 
slightly better than that. Add in the annuity--financed with voluntary 
contributions of 2 percent of earnings--and benefits are 20 percent or 
more higher than the current program can deliver--even assuming real 
rates of interest no higher than a modest 3 percent. For 2070, the 
actuaries estimate that current financing will only support benefits 
equal to 68 percent of what is promised--a reduction of more than 30 
percent. Again we do slightly better even without the private 
accounts--and more than 25 percent better with the private accounts.
  As I say, this won't be easy. Which is why this is a time for courage 
as well as policy analysis. Social Security, one of the great 
achievements of our government in this century, is ours to maintain. 
Our bill does just that.
  I ask unanimous consent the summary of the bill and the full text of 
the bill be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 21

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Social 
     Security Solvency Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Modification of FICA rates to provide pay-as-you-go financing 
              of social security.
Sec. 3. Voluntary investment of payroll tax cut by employees.
Sec. 4. Increase of social security wage base.
Sec. 5. Cost-of-living adjustments.
Sec. 6. Tax treatment of social security payments.
Sec. 7. Coverage of newly hired State and local employees.
Sec. 8. Increase in length of computation period from 35 to 38 years.
Sec. 9. Modification of PIA factors to reflect changes in life 
              expectancy.
Sec. 10. Elimination of earnings test for individuals who have attained 
              early retirement age.
Sec. 11. Social security kidsave accounts.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF FICA RATES TO PROVIDE PAY-AS-YOU-GO 
                   FINANCING OF SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Tax on employees.--Section 3101(a) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to tax on employees) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to other taxes, there is 
     hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal 
     to the applicable percentage of the wages (as defined in 
     section 3121(a)) received by him with respect to employment 
     (as defined in section 3121(b)).
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage shall be the percentage set 
     forth in the following table:

The applicable percentage shall be::
      2000 through 2029............................................5.2 
      2030 through 2034............................................6.2 
      2035 through 2049...........................................6.45 
      2050 through 2059...........................................6.65 
      2060 or thereafter.......................................6.85 .''

       (2) Tax on employers.--Section 3111(a) of such Code 
     (relating to tax on employers) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to other taxes, there is 
     hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect 
     to having individuals in his employ, equal to the applicable 
     percentage of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid 
     by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 
     3121(b)).
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage shall be the percentage set 
     forth in the following table:

The applicable percentage shall be:
      2000 and 2001................................................6.2 
      2002 through 2029............................................5.2 
      2030 through 2034............................................6.2 
      2035 through 2049...........................................6.45 

[[Page 721]]

      2050 through 2059...........................................6.65 
      2060 or thereafter.......................................6.85 .''

       (3) Self-employment tax.--Section 1401(a) of such Code 
     (relating to tax on self-employment income) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(a) Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to other taxes, there is 
     hereby imposed for each taxable year, on the self-employment 
     income of every individual, a tax equal to the applicable 
     percentage of the amount of the self-employment income for 
     such taxable year.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage shall be the percentage set 
     forth in the following table:


             ``In the case of a taxable year
                                                          The applicable
         Beginning after:               And before:       percentage is:
 December 31, 1999................  January 1, 2002.....  11.4
December 31, 2001................  January 1, 2030.....  10.4
December 31, 2029................  January 1, 2035.....  12.4
December 31, 2034................  January 1, 2050.....  12.9
December 31, 2049................  January 1, 2060.....  13.3
December 31, 2059................  ....................  13.7.''
 

       (4) Effective dates.--
       (A) Employees and employers.--The amendments made by 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) apply to remuneration paid after 
     December 31, 1999.
       (B) Self-employed individuals.--The amendment made by 
     paragraph (3) applies to taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 1999.
       (b) Reallocation of Employment Taxes.--
       (1) Reallocation of tax on employees and employers.--
     Section 201(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     401(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``(Q) 1.70 per centum of 
     the wages (as so defined) paid after December 31, 1996, and 
     before January 1, 2000, and so reported, and (R) 1.80 per 
     centum of the wages (as so defined) paid after December 31, 
     1999, and so reported'' and inserting ``(Q) 1.70 per centum 
     of the wages (as so defined) paid after December 31, 1996, 
     and before January 1, 2000, and so reported, (R) 1.80 per 
     centum of the wages (as so defined) paid after December 31, 
     1999, and before January 1, 2030, and so reported, (S) 2.15 
     per centum of the wages (as so defined) paid after December 
     31, 2029, and before January 1, 2035, and so reported, (T) 
     2.23 per centum of the wages (as so defined) paid after 
     December 31, 2034, and before January 1, 2050, and so 
     reported, (U) 2.30 per centum of the wages (as so defined) 
     paid after December 31, 2049, and before January 1, 2060, and 
     so reported, and (V) 2.39 per centum of the wages (as so 
     defined) paid after December 31, 2059, and so reported''.
       (2) Reallocation of tax on self-employment income.--Section 
     201(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 401(b)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``(Q) 1.70 per centum of self-employment income (as 
     so defined) so reported for any taxable year beginning after 
     December 31, 1996, and before January 1, 2000, and (R) 1.80 
     per centum of self-employment income (as so defined) so 
     reported for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 
     1999'' and inserting ``(Q) 1.70 per centum of self-employment 
     income (as so defined) so reported for any taxable year 
     beginning after December 31, 1996, and before January 1, 
     2000, (R) 1.80 per centum of self-employment income (as so 
     defined) so reported for any taxable year beginning after 
     December 31, 1999, and before January 1, 2030, (S) 2.15 per 
     centum of self-employment income (as so defined) so reported 
     for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2029, and 
     before January 1, 2035, (T) 2.23 per centum of self-
     employment income (as so defined) so reported for any taxable 
     year beginning after December 31, 2034, and before January 1, 
     2050, (U) 2.30 per centum of self-employment income (as so 
     defined) so reported for any taxable year beginning after 
     December 31, 2049, and before January 1, 2060, and (V) 2.39 
     per centum of self-employment income (as so defined) so 
     reported for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 
     2059''.
       (c) Future Rates and Allocation Between Trust Funds 
     Proposed by Board of Trustees for Legislative Action.--
       (1) In general.--Section 201(c) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 401(c)) is amended in the matter following 
     paragraph (5) by striking ``(as defined by the Board of 
     Trustees).'' and inserting ``(as defined by the Board of 
     Trustees. If such finding shows that the combined Trust Funds 
     are not in close actuarial balance (as so defined), then such 
     report (beginning in April 2001) shall include a legislative 
     recommendation by the Board of Trustees specifying new rates 
     of tax under sections 3101(a), 3111(a), and 1401(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and the allocation of those 
     rates between the Trust Funds necessary in order to restore 
     the combined Trust Funds and each Trust Fund to actuarial 
     balance. If such finding shows that the combined Trust Funds 
     are in close actuarial balance (as so defined), but that 1 of 
     the Trust Funds is not in close actuarial balance, then such 
     report (beginning in April 2001) shall include a legislative 
     recommendation by the Board of Trustees specifying a new 
     allocation of such rates of tax between the Trust Funds, so 
     that each Trust Fund is in close actuarial balance. Such 
     recommendation shall be considered by Congress under 
     procedures described in subsection (n)).''.
       (2) Fast-track consideration of legislative 
     recommendations.--Section 201 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 401) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(n)(1) Any legislative recommendation included in the 
     report provided for in subsection (c) shall--
       ``(A) not later than 3 days after the Board of Trustees 
     submits such report, be introduced (by request) in the House 
     of Representatives by the Majority Leader of the House and be 
     introduced (by request) in the Senate by the Majority Leader 
     of the Senate; and
       ``(B) be given expedited consideration under the same 
     provisions and in the same way, subject to paragraph (2), as 
     a joint resolution under section 2908 of the Defense Base 
     Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2678 note).
       ``(2) For purposes of applying paragraph (1) with respect 
     to such provisions, the following rules shall apply:
       ``(A) Section 2908(a) of the Defense Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2678 note) shall not 
     apply.
       ``(B) Any reference to the resolution described in 
     subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
     legislative recommendation submitted under subsection (c) of 
     this Act.
       ``(C) Any reference to the Committee on National Security 
     of the House of Representatives shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and any reference to the Committee on Armed 
     Services of the Senate shall be deemed to be a reference to 
     the Committee on Finance of the Senate.
       ``(D) Any reference to the date on which the President 
     transmits a report shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
     date on which the recommendation is submitted under 
     subsection (c).''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments to FERS To Protect Payroll Tax 
     Cut.--The table contained in section 8422(a)(3) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``7'' the second place it appears and 
     inserting ``6'';
       (2) by striking ``7.4'' and inserting ``6.4'';
       (3) by striking ``7.5'' the first, third, fifth, and 
     seventh places it appears and inserting ``6.5'';
       (4) by striking ``7.9'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``6.9''; and
       (5) by striking ``8'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``7''.

     SEC. 3. VOLUNTARY INVESTMENT OF PAYROLL TAX CUT BY EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Voluntary Investment of Payroll Tax Cut.--
       (1) In general.--Title II of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) by inserting before section 201 the following:

                    ``Part A--Insurance Benefits'';

     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:

                ``Part B--Voluntary Investment Accounts


  ``employee election and designation of voluntary investment account 
                      under payroll deduction plan

       ``Sec. 251. (a) In General.--An individual who is an 
     employee of a covered employer may elect to participate in 
     the employer's voluntary investment account payroll deduction 
     plan either--
       ``(1) not later than 10 business days after the individual 
     becomes an employee of the employer, or
       ``(2) during any open enrollment period.
     The Commissioner shall by regulation provide for at least 1 
     open enrollment period annually.
       ``(b) Period of Election.--
       ``(1) Time election takes effect.--An election under 
     subsection (a) shall take effect with respect to the first 
     pay period beginning more than 14 days after the date of the 
     election.
       ``(2) Termination.--An election under subsection (a) shall 
     terminate--
       ``(A) upon the termination of employment of the employee of 
     the covered employer, or
       ``(B) with respect to pay periods beginning more than 14 
     days after the employee terminates such election.
       ``(c) Designation of Voluntary Investment Account.--
       ``(1) Initial election.--An employee shall, at the time an 
     election is made under subsection (a), designate the 
     voluntary investment account to which voluntary investment 
     account contributions on behalf of the employee are to be 
     deposited.
       ``(2) Changes.--The Commissioner shall by regulation 
     provide the time and manner by which an employee or a person 
     described in section 254(d) on behalf of such employee may--
       ``(A) designate another voluntary investment account to 
     which contributions are to be deposited, and
       ``(B) transfer amounts from one such account to another.
       ``(d) Form of Elections.--Elections under this section 
     shall be made--
       ``(1) on W-4 forms (or any successor forms), or
       ``(2) in such other manner as the Commissioner may 
     prescribe in order to ensure ease of administration and 
     reductions in burdens on employers.

[[Page 722]]




         ``voluntary investment account payroll deduction plans

       ``Sec. 252. (a) In General.--Each person who is a covered 
     employer for a calendar year shall have in effect a voluntary 
     investment account payroll deduction plan for such calendar 
     year for such person's electing employees.
       ``(b) Voluntary Investment Account Payroll Deduction 
     Plans.--For purposes of this part, the term `voluntary 
     investment account payroll deduction plan' means a written 
     plan of an employer--
       ``(1) which applies only with respect to wages of any 
     employee who elects to become an electing employee in 
     accordance with section 251,
       ``(2) under which the voluntary investment account 
     contributions under section 3101(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 will be deducted from an electing employee's 
     wages and, together with such contributions under section 
     3111(a) of such Code on behalf of such employee, will be paid 
     to the Social Security Administration for deposit in 1 or 
     more voluntary investment accounts designated by such 
     employee in accordance with section 251,
       ``(3) under which the employer is required to pay the 
     amount so contributed with respect to the specified voluntary 
     investment account of the electing employee within the same 
     time period as other taxes under sections 3101 and 3111 with 
     respect to the wages of such employee,
       ``(4) under which the employer receives no compensation for 
     the cost of administering such plan, and
       ``(5) under which the employer does not make any 
     endorsement with respect to any voluntary investment account.
       ``(c) Penalties for Failure To Establish Voluntary 
     Investment Account Payroll Deduction Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any covered employer who fails to meet 
     the requirements of this section for any calendar year shall 
     be subject to a civil penalty of not to exceed the greater 
     of--
       ``(A) $2,500, or
       ``(B) $100 for each electing employee of such employer as 
     of the beginning of such calendar year.
       ``(2) Rules for application of subsection.--
       ``(A) Penalties assessed by commissioner.--Any civil 
     penalty assessed by this subsection shall be imposed by the 
     Commissioner of Social Security and collected in a civil 
     action.
       ``(B) Compromises.--The Commissioner may compromise the 
     amount of any civil penalty imposed by this subsection.
       ``(C) Authority to waive penalty in certain cases.--The 
     Commissioner may waive the application of this subsection 
     with respect to any failure if the Commissioner determines 
     that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not to 
     intentional disregard of rules and regulations.


              ``participation by self-employed individuals

       ``Sec. 253. An individual shall make an election to become 
     an electing self-employed individual, designate a voluntary 
     investment account, and have in effect a voluntary investment 
     account payroll deduction plan under rules similar to the 
     rules under sections 251 and 252.


                    ``definitions and special rules

       ``Sec. 254. (a) Voluntary investment account.--For purposes 
     of this part--
       ``(1) a voluntary investment account described in this 
     paragraph is a voluntary investment account in the Voluntary 
     Investment Fund (established under section 255),
       ``(2) a voluntary investment account described in this 
     paragraph is an individual retirement plan (as defined in 
     section 7701(a)(37) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), 
     other than a Roth IRA (as defined in section 408A(b) of such 
     Code), which is designated by the electing employee as a 
     voluntary investment account (in such manner as the Secretary 
     of the Treasury may prescribe) and which is administered or 
     issued by a bank or other person referred to in section 
     408(a)(2) of such Code, and
       ``(3) a voluntary investment account described in this 
     paragraph is a KidSave Account (as described in paragraph (1) 
     or (2) of section 262(a)) of the electing employee, which is 
     designated by the electing employee as a voluntary investment 
     account (in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury may 
     prescribe).
       ``(b) Treatment of Accounts.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) any voluntary investment account described in 
     paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall be treated in the same 
     manner as an account in the Thrift Savings Fund under 
     subchapter III of chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code,
       ``(B) any voluntary investment account described in 
     paragraph (2) of subsection (a) shall be treated in the same 
     manner as an individual retirement plan (as so defined), and
       ``(C) any voluntary investment account described in 
     paragraph (3) of subsection (a) shall be treated in the same 
     manner as the designated KidSave Account would have been 
     treated under section 262(b).
       ``(2) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) Contribution limit.--The aggregate amount of 
     contributions for any taxable year to all voluntary 
     investment accounts of an electing employee shall not exceed 
     the aggregate amount of contributions made pursuant to 
     sections 3101(a)(3), 3111(a)(3), and 1401(a)(3) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and paid pursuant to section 
     252 or 253 on behalf of such employee.
       ``(B) No deduction allowed.--No deduction shall be allowed 
     under section 219 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for a 
     contribution to a voluntary investment account.
       ``(C) Rollover contributions.--No rollover contribution may 
     be made to a voluntary investment account unless it is from 
     another voluntary investment account or a KidSave Account (as 
     described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 262(a)). A 
     rollover described in the preceding sentence shall not be 
     taken into account for purposes of subparagraph (A).
       ``(D) Distributions allowed to social security 
     beneficiaries.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     distributions may only be made from a voluntary investment 
     account of an electing employee on or after the earlier of--
       ``(i) the date on which the employee begins receiving 
     benefits under this title, or
       ``(ii) the date of the employee's death.
       ``(c) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this part--
       ``(1) Covered employer.--The term `covered employer' means, 
     for any calendar year, any person on whom an excise tax is 
     imposed under section 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 with respect to having an individual in the person's 
     employ to whom wages are paid by such person during such 
     calendar year.
       ``(2) Electing employee.--The term `electing employee' 
     means an individual with respect to whom an election under 
     section 251 is in effect.
       ``(3) Electing self-employed individual.--The term 
     `electing self-employed individual' means an individual with 
     respect to whom an election under section 253 is in effect.
       ``(d) Treatment of incompetent individuals.--Any 
     designation under section 251(c)(2) to be made by an 
     individual mentally incompetent or under other legal 
     disability may be made by the person who is constituted 
     guardian or other fiduciary by the law of the State of 
     residence of the individual or is otherwise legally vested 
     with the care of the individual or his estate. Payment under 
     this part due an individual mentally incompetent or under 
     other legal disability may be made to the person who is 
     constituted guardian or other fiduciary by the law of the 
     State of residence of the claimant or is otherwise legally 
     vested with the care of the claimant or his estate. In any 
     case in which a guardian or other fiduciary of the individual 
     under legal disability has not been appointed under the law 
     of the State of residence of the individual, if any other 
     person, in the judgment of the Commissioner, is responsible 
     for the care of such individual, any designation under 
     section 251(c)(2) which may otherwise be made by such 
     individual may be made by such person, any payment under this 
     part which is otherwise payable to such individual may be 
     made to such person, and the payment of an annuity payment 
     under this part to such person bars recovery by any other 
     person.


                      ``voluntary investment fund

       ``Sec. 255. (a) Establishment.--There is established and 
     maintained in the Treasury of the United States a Voluntary 
     Investment Fund in the same manner as the Thrift Savings Fund 
     under sections 8437, 8438, and 8439 of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       ``(b) Voluntary Investment Fund Board.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is established and operated in the 
     Social Security Administration a Voluntary Investment Fund 
     Board in the same manner as the Federal Retirement Thrift 
     Investment Board under subchapter VII of chapter 84 of title 
     5, United States Code.
       ``(2) Specific investment duties.--The Voluntary Investment 
     Fund shall be managed by the Voluntary Investment Fund Board 
     in the same manner as the Thrift Savings Fund is managed 
     under subchapter VIII of chapter 84 of title 5, United States 
     Code.''.
       (2) Exemption from erisa requirements.--Section 4(b) of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
     1003(b)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or'';
       (B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) such plan is a voluntary investment account payroll 
     deduction plan established under part B of title II of the 
     Social Security Act.''.
       (3) Effective date and notice requirements.--
       (A) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     (and any voluntary investment account payroll deduction plan 
     required thereunder) apply with respect to wages paid after 
     December 31, 2001, for pay periods beginning after such date 
     and self-employment income for taxable years beginning after 
     such date.
       (B) Notice requirements.--

[[Page 723]]

       (i) In general.--Not later than October 1, 2001, the 
     Commissioner of Social Security shall--

       (I) send to the last known address of each eligible 
     individual a description of the program established by the 
     amendments made by this subsection, which shall be written in 
     the form of a pamphlet in language which may be readily 
     understood by the average worker,
        (II) provide for toll-free access by telephone from all 
     localities in the United States and access by the Internet to 
     the Social Security Administration through which individuals 
     may obtain information and answers to questions regarding 
     such program, and
       (III) provide information to the media in all localities of 
     the United States about such program and such toll-free 
     access by telephone and access by Internet.

       (ii) Eligible individual.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the term ``eligible individual'' means an 
     individual who, as of the date of the pamphlet sent pursuant 
     to clause (i), is indicated within the records of the Social 
     Security Administration as being credited with 1 or more 
     quarters of coverage under section 213 of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 413).
       (iii) Matters to be included.--The Commissioner shall 
     include with the pamphlet sent to each eligible individual 
     pursuant to clause (i)--

       (I) a statement of the number of quarters of coverage 
     indicated in the records of the Social Security 
     Administration as of the date of the description as credited 
     to such individual under section 213 of such Act and the date 
     as of which such records may be considered accurate, and
       (II) the number for toll-free access by telephone 
     established by the Commissioner pursuant to clause (i).

       (b) Conforming Amendments to Payroll Tax Provisions.--
       (1) Employees voluntary investment contributions.--Section 
     3101(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to tax 
     on employees), as amended by section 2(a)(1), is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Voluntary investment account contribution.--In the 
     case of an electing employee (as defined in section 254(c)(2) 
     of the Social Security Act), in addition to other taxes, 
     there is hereby imposed on the income of such employee a 
     voluntary investment account contribution equal to 1 percent 
     of the wages (as so defined) received by him with respect to 
     employment (as so defined).''.
       (2) Employers matching contributions.--Section 3111(a) of 
     such Code (relating to tax on employers), as amended by 
     section 2(a)(2), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Matching contribution to employee voluntary 
     investment account contribution.--In the case of an employer 
     having in his employ an electing employee (as defined in 
     section 254(c)(2) of the Social Security Act), in addition to 
     other taxes, there is hereby imposed on such employer a 
     voluntary investment account contribution equal to 1 percent 
     of the wages (as so defined) paid by him with respect to 
     employment (as so defined) of such employee.''.
       (3) Self-employment voluntary investment account 
     contributions.--Section 1401(a) of such Code (relating to tax 
     on self-employment income), as amended by section 2(a)(3), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Voluntary investment account contribution.--In the 
     case of an electing self-employed individual (as defined in 
     section 254(c)(3) of the Social Security Act), in addition to 
     other taxes, there is hereby imposed for each taxable year, 
     on the self-employment income of such individual, a voluntary 
     investment account contribution equal to 2 percent of the 
     amount of the self-employment income for such taxable 
     year.''.
       (4) Effective dates.--
       (A) Employees and employers.--The amendments made by 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) apply to remuneration paid after 
     December 31, 2001.
       (B) Self-employed individuals.--The amendment made by 
     paragraph (3) applies to taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 2001.

     SEC. 4. INCREASE OF SOCIAL SECURITY WAGE BASE.

       (a) In General.--Section 230 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 430) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$60,600'' and inserting 
     ``$99,900''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``1992'' and inserting 
     ``2002''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``(1)'' and all that follows through 
     ``$29,700.'' and inserting ``the `contribution and benefit 
     base' with respect to remuneration paid (and taxable years 
     beginning)--
       ``(1) in 2002 shall be $87,000,
       ``(2) in 2003 shall be $94,000, and
       ``(3) in 2004 shall be $99,900.''; and
       (B) by striking ``specified in clause (2) of the preceding 
     sentence'' and inserting ``specified in the preceding 
     sentence''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on January 1, 2002.

     SEC. 5. COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS.

       (a) Cost-of-Living Board.--Title XI of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

                  ``Part D--Cost-of-Living Adjustments


                ``Determination of Inflation Adjustment

       ``Sec. 1180. (a) Modification of Cost-of-Living 
     Adjustment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any cost-of-living adjustment described in subsection 
     (e) shall be reduced by the applicable percentage point.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage point.--In this section, the 
     term `applicable percentage point' means--
       ``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), 1 percentage 
     point; or
       ``(B) the applicable percentage point adopted by the Cost-
     of-Living Board under subsection (b) for the calendar year.
       ``(b) Cost-of-Living Board Determination.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Cost-of-Living Board established 
     under section 1181 shall for each calendar year after 1999 
     determine if a new applicable percentage point is necessary 
     to replace the applicable percentage point described in 
     subsection (a)(2)(A) to ensure an accurate cost-of-living 
     adjustment which shall apply to any cost-of-living adjustment 
     taking effect during such year.
       ``(2) Adoption or rejection of new applicable percentage 
     point.--
       ``(A) Adoption.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the Cost-of-Living Board adopts by 
     majority vote a new applicable percentage point under 
     paragraph (1), then, for purposes of subsection (a)(1), the 
     new applicable percentage point shall remain in effect during 
     the following calendar year.
       ``(ii) Appropriate adjustments.--The Cost-of-Living Board 
     shall make appropriate adjustments to the applicable 
     percentage point applied to any cost-of-living adjustment 
     if--

       ``(I) the period during which the change in the cost-of-
     living is measured for such adjustment is different than the 
     period used by the Cost-of-Living Board; or
       ``(II) the adjustment is based on a component of an index 
     rather than the entire index.

       ``(B) Rejection.--If the Cost-of-Living Board fails by 
     majority vote to adopt a new applicable percentage point 
     under paragraph (1) for any calendar year, then the 
     applicable percentage point for such calendar year shall be 
     the applicable percentage point described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(A).
       ``(c) Report.--Not later than November 1 of each calendar 
     year, the Cost-of-Living Board shall submit a report to the 
     President and Congress containing a detailed statement with 
     respect to the new applicable percentage point (if any) 
     agreed to by the Board under subsection (b).
       ``(d) Judicial Review.--Any determination by the Cost-of 
     Living Board under subsection (b) shall not be subject to 
     judicial review.
       ``(e) Cost-of-Living Adjustment Described.--A cost-of-
     living adjustment described in this subsection is any cost-
     of-living adjustment for a calendar year after 1999 
     determined by reference to a percentage change in a consumer 
     price index or any component thereof (as published by the 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor and 
     determined without regard to this section) and used in any of 
     the following:
       ``(1) The Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(2) Titles II, XVIII, and XIX of this Act.
       ``(3) Any other Federal program (not including programs 
     under title XVI of this Act).


                         ``COST-OF-LIVING BOARD

       ``Sec. 1181. (a) Establishment of Board.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established a board to be 
     known as the Cost-of-Living Board (in this section referred 
     to as the `Board').
       ``(2) Membership.--
       ``(A) Composition.--The Board shall be composed of 5 
     members of whom--
       ``(i) 1 shall be the Chairman of the Board of Governors of 
     the Federal Reserve System;
       ``(ii) 1 shall be the Chairman of the President's Council 
     of Economic Advisers; and
       ``(iii) 3 shall be appointed by the President, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate.

     The President shall consult with the leadership of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate in the appointment of the 
     Board members under clause (iii).
       ``(B) Expertise.--The members of the Board appointed under 
     subparagraph (A)(iii) shall be experts in the field of 
     economics and should be familiar with the issues related to 
     the calculation of changes in the cost of living. In 
     appointing members under subparagraph (A)(iii), the President 
     shall consider appointing--
       ``(i) former members of the President's Council of Economic 
     Advisers;
       ``(ii) former Treasury department officials;
       ``(iii) former members of the Board of Governors of the 
     Federal Reserve System;
       ``(iv) other individuals with relevant prior government 
     experience in positions requiring appointment by the 
     President and Senate confirmation; and
       ``(v) academic experts in the field of price statistics.
       ``(C) Date.--

[[Page 724]]

       ``(i) Nominations.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Social Security Solvency Act of 1999, the 
     President shall submit the nominations of the members of the 
     Board described in subparagraph (A)(iii) to the Senate.
       ``(ii) Senate action.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     Senate receives the nominations under clause (i), the Senate 
     shall vote on confirmation of the nominations.
       ``(3) Terms and vacancies.--
       ``(A) Terms.--A member of the Board appointed under 
     paragraph (2)(A)(iii) shall be appointed for a term of 5 
     years, except that of the members first appointed under that 
     paragraph--
       ``(i) 1 member shall be appointed for a term of 1 year;
       ``(ii) 1 member shall be appointed for a term of 3 years; 
     and
       ``(iii) 1 member shall be appointed for a term of 5 years.
       ``(B) Vacancies.--
       ``(i) In general.--A vacancy on the Board shall be filled 
     in the manner in which the original appointment was made and 
     shall be subject to any conditions which applied with respect 
     to the original appointment.
       ``(ii) Filling unexpired term.--An individual chosen to 
     fill a vacancy shall be appointed for the unexpired term of 
     the member replaced.
       ``(C) Expiration of terms.--The term of any member 
     appointed under paragraph (2)(A)(iii) shall not expire before 
     the date on which the member's successor takes office.
       ``(4) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which all members of the Board have been appointed, 
     the Board shall hold its first meeting. Subsequent meetings 
     shall be determined by the Board by majority vote.
       ``(5) Open meetings.--Notwithstanding section 552b of title 
     5, United States Code, or section 10 of the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the Board may, by majority 
     vote, close any meeting of the Board to the public otherwise 
     required to be open under that section. The Board shall make 
     the records of any such closed meeting available to the 
     public not later than 30 days of that meeting.
       ``(6) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall 
     constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold 
     hearings.
       ``(7) Chairperson and vice chairperson.--The Board shall 
     select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among the 
     members appointed under paragraph (2)(A)(iii).
       ``(b) Powers of the Board.--
       ``(1) Hearings.--The Board may hold such hearings, sit and 
     act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Board considers advisable to 
     carry out the purposes of this part.
       ``(2) Information from federal agencies.--The Board may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the Board considers necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of this part, including the published and 
     unpublished data and analytical products of the Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics. Upon request of the Chairperson of the 
     Board, the head of such department or agency shall furnish 
     such information to the Board.
       ``(3) Postal services.--The Board may use the United States 
     mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as 
     other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       ``(4) Gifts.--The Board may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.
       ``(c) Board Personnel Matters.--
       ``(1) Compensation of members.--Each member of the Board 
     who is not otherwise an officer or employee of the Federal 
     Government shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily 
     equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for 
     level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of 
     title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel 
     time) during which such member is engaged in the performance 
     of the duties of the Board. All members of the Board who 
     otherwise are officers or employees of the United States 
     shall serve without compensation in addition to that received 
     for their services as officers or employees of the United 
     States.
       ``(2) Travel expenses.--The members of the Board shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Board.
       ``(3) Staff.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Chairperson of the Board may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
     appoint and terminate an executive director and such other 
     additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the Board 
     to perform its duties. The employment of an executive 
     director shall be subject to confirmation by the Board.
       ``(B) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Board may fix 
     the compensation of the executive director and other 
     personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to classification of positions and General Schedule 
     pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive 
     director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable 
     for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of 
     such title.
       ``(4) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal 
     Government employee may be detailed to the Board without 
     additional reimbursement (other than the employee's regular 
     compensation), and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       ``(5) Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.--
     The Chairperson of the Board may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.
       ``(d) Termination.--Section 14 of the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Board.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Board such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out the purposes of this part.''.
       (c) Termination of Wage Index Adjustment.--Section 
     215(i)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     415(i)(1)(C)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i)--
       (A) by inserting ``and before 2000'' after ``after 1988''; 
     and
       (B) by inserting ``, or in any calendar year after 1999, 
     the CPI increase percentage''; and
       (2) in clause (ii), by inserting ``and before 2000'' after 
     ``after 1988''.

     SEC. 6. TAX TREATMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 86(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to social security and tier 1 railroad 
     retirement benefits) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Income Inclusion.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Notwithstanding section 207 of the 
     Social Security Act, social security benefits shall be 
     included in the gross income of a taxpayer for any taxable 
     year in the manner provided under section 72.
       ``(2) Transition rules.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), with 
     respect to any taxable year beginning in 2000, 2001, 2002, or 
     2003, gross income of the taxpayer shall include social 
     security benefits in an amount equal to the greater of--
       ``(i) the applicable percentage of the amount which would 
     have been included under paragraph (1) for such year, or
       ``(ii) the amount which would have been included under this 
     section for such year if the amendments made by section 6 of 
     the Social Security Solvency Act of 1999 had not been 
     enacted.
       ``(B) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A)(i), the applicable percentage for any taxable year shall 
     be determined in accordance with the following table:

The applicable percentage is:year beginning in--
  2000..........................................................20 ....

  2001..........................................................40 ....

  2002..........................................................60 ....

  2003.......................................................80.''.....

       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 86 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subsections (b), 
     (c), and (e) and by redesignating subsections (d) and (f) as 
     subsections (b) and (c), respectively.
       (c) Transfers to Trust Funds.--Paragraph (1)(A) of section 
     121(e) of the Social Security Amendments of 1983, as amended 
     by section 13215(c)(1) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1993, is amended by striking ``1993.'' and inserting 
     ``1993, plus (iii) the amounts equivalent to the aggregate 
     increase in tax liabilities under chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 which is attributable to the amendments 
     to section 86 of such Code made by section 6 of the Social 
     Security Solvency Act of 1999.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 1999.

     SEC. 7. COVERAGE OF NEWLY HIRED STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Amendments to the Social Security Act.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (7) of section 210(a) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 410(a)(7)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(7) Excluded State or local government employment (as 
     defined in subsection (s));''.
       (2) Excluded state or local government employment.--
       (A) In general.--Section 210 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 410) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

            ``Excluded State or Local Government Employment

       ``(s)(1) In General.--The term `excluded State or local 
     government employment' means any service performed in the 
     employ of a State, of any political subdivision thereof, or 
     of any instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing 
     which is wholly owned thereby, if--
       ``(A)(i) such service would be excluded from the term 
     `employment' for purposes of this title if the preceding 
     provisions of this section as in effect on December 31, 2001, 
     had remained in effect, and (ii) the requirements of 
     paragraph (2) are met with respect to such service, or

[[Page 725]]

       ``(B) the requirements of paragraph (3) are met with 
     respect to such service.
       ``(2) Exception for Current Employment Which Continues.--
       ``(A) In general.--The requirements of this paragraph are 
     met with respect to service for any employer if--
       ``(i) such service is performed by an individual--
       ``(I) who was performing substantial and regular service 
     for remuneration for that employer before January 1, 2002,
       ``(II) who is a bona fide employee of that employer on 
     December 31, 2001, and
       ``(III) whose employment relationship with that employer 
     was not entered into for purposes of meeting the requirements 
     of this subparagraph, and
       ``(ii) the employment relationship with that employer has 
     not been terminated after December 31, 2001.
       ``(B) Treatment of multiple agencies and 
     instrumentalities.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), under 
     regulations (consistent with regulations established under 
     section 3121(t)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)--
       ``(i) all agencies and instrumentalities of a State (as 
     defined in section 218(b)) or of the District of Columbia 
     shall be treated as a single employer, and
       ``(ii) all agencies and instrumentalities of a political 
     subdivision of a State (as so defined) shall be treated as a 
     single employer and shall not be treated as described in 
     clause (i).
       ``(3) Exception for Certain Services.--
       ``(A) In general.--The requirements of this paragraph are 
     met with respect to service if such service is performed--
       ``(i) by an individual who is employed by a State or 
     political subdivision thereof to relieve such individual from 
     unemployment,
       ``(ii) in a hospital, home, or other institution by a 
     patient or inmate thereof as an employee of a State or 
     political subdivision thereof or of the District of Columbia,
       ``(iii) by an individual, as an employee of a State or 
     political subdivision thereof or of the District of Columbia, 
     serving on a temporary basis in case of fire, storm, snow, 
     earthquake, flood, or other similar emergency,
       ``(iv) by any individual as an employee included under 
     section 5351(2) of title 5, United States Code (relating to 
     certain interns, student nurses, and other student employees 
     of hospitals of the District of Columbia Government), other 
     than as a medical or dental intern or a medical or dental 
     resident in training,
       ``(v) by an election official or election worker if the 
     remuneration paid in a calendar year for such service is less 
     than $1,000 with respect to service performed during 2002, 
     and the adjusted amount determined under subparagraph (C) for 
     any subsequent year with respect to service performed during 
     such subsequent year, except to the extent that service by 
     such election official or election worker is included in 
     employment under an agreement under section 218, or
       ``(vi) by an employee in a position compensated solely on a 
     fee basis which is treated pursuant to section 211(c)(2)(E) 
     as a trade or business for purposes of inclusion of such fees 
     in net earnings from self-employment.
       ``(B) Definitions.--As used in this paragraph, the terms 
     `State' and `political subdivision' have the meanings given 
     those terms in section 218(b).
       ``(C) Adjustments to dollar amount for election officials 
     and election workers.--For each year after 2002, the 
     Secretary shall adjust the amount referred to in subparagraph 
     (A)(v) at the same time and in the same manner as is provided 
     under section 215(a)(1)(B)(ii) with respect to the amounts 
     referred to in section 215(a)(1)(B)(i), except that--
       ``(i) for purposes of this subparagraph, 1999 shall be 
     substituted for the calendar year referred to in section 
     215(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II), and
       ``(ii) such amount as so adjusted, if not a multiple of 
     $50, shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $50.

     The Commissioner of Social Security shall determine and 
     publish in the Federal Register each adjusted amount 
     determined under this subparagraph not later than November 1 
     preceding the year for which the adjustment is made.''.
       (B) Conforming amendments.--
       (i) Subsection (k) of section 210 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     410(k)) (relating to covered transportation service) is 
     repealed.
       (ii) Section 210(p) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 410(p)) is 
     amended--

       (I) in paragraph (2), by striking ``service is performed'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``service is service 
     described in subsection (s)(3)(A).''; and
       (II) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting ``under subsection 
     (a)(7) as in effect on December 31, 2001'' after ``section''.

       (iii) Section 218(c)(6) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 418(c)(6)) 
     is amended--

       (I) by striking subparagraph (C);
       (II) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as 
     subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and
       (III) by striking subparagraph (F) and inserting the 
     following:

       ``(E) service which is included as employment under section 
     210(a).''
       (b) Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (7) of section 3121(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to employment) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(7) excluded State or local government employment (as 
     defined in subsection (t));''.
       (2) Excluded state or local government employment.--Section 
     3121 of such Code is amended by inserting after subsection 
     (s) the following new subsection:
       ``(t) Excluded State or Local Government Employment.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this chapter, the term 
     `excluded State or local government employment' means any 
     service performed in the employ of a State, of any political 
     subdivision thereof, or of any instrumentality of any one or 
     more of the foregoing which is wholly owned thereby, if--
       ``(A)(i) such service would be excluded from the term 
     `employment' for purposes of this chapter if the provisions 
     of subsection (b)(7) as in effect on December 31, 2001, had 
     remained in effect, and (ii) the requirements of paragraph 
     (2) are met with respect to such service, or
       ``(B) the requirements of paragraph (3) are met with 
     respect to such service.
       ``(2) Exception for current employment which continues.--
       ``(A) In general.--The requirements of this paragraph are 
     met with respect to service for any employer if--
       ``(i) such service is performed by an individual--

       ``(I) who was performing substantial and regular service 
     for remuneration for that employer before January 1, 2002,
       ``(II) who is a bona fide employee of that employer on 
     December 31, 2001, and
       ``(III) whose employment relationship with that employer 
     was not entered into for purposes of meeting the requirements 
     of this subparagraph, and

       ``(ii) the employment relationship with that employer has 
     not been terminated after December 31, 2001.
       ``(B) Treatment of multiple agencies and 
     instrumentalities.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), under 
     regulations--
       ``(i) all agencies and instrumentalities of a State (as 
     defined in section 218(b) of the Social Security Act) or of 
     the District of Columbia shall be treated as a single 
     employer, and
       ``(ii) all agencies and instrumentalities of a political 
     subdivision of a State (as so defined) shall be treated as a 
     single employer and shall not be treated as described in 
     clause (i).
       ``(3) Exception for certain services.--
       ``(A) In general.--The requirements of this paragraph are 
     met with respect to service if such service is performed--
       ``(i) by an individual who is employed by a State or 
     political subdivision thereof to relieve such individual from 
     unemployment,
       ``(ii) in a hospital, home, or other institution by a 
     patient or inmate thereof as an employee of a State or 
     political subdivision thereof or of the District of Columbia,
       ``(iii) by an individual, as an employee of a State or 
     political subdivision thereof or of the District of Columbia, 
     serving on a temporary basis in case of fire, storm, snow, 
     earthquake, flood, or other similar emergency,
       ``(iv) by any individual as an employee included under 
     section 5351(2) of title 5, United States Code (relating to 
     certain interns, student nurses, and other student employees 
     of hospitals of the District of Columbia Government), other 
     than as a medical or dental intern or a medical or dental 
     resident in training,
       ``(v) by an election official or election worker if the 
     remuneration paid in a calendar year for such service is less 
     than $1,000 with respect to service performed during 2002, 
     and the adjusted amount determined under section 210(s)(3)(C) 
     of the Social Security Act for any subsequent year with 
     respect to service performed during such subsequent year, 
     except to the extent that service by such election official 
     or election worker is included in employment under an 
     agreement under section 218 of the Social Security Act, or
       ``(vi) by an employee in a position compensated solely on a 
     fee basis which is treated pursuant to section 1402(c)(2)(E) 
     as a trade or business for purposes of inclusion of such fees 
     in net earnings from self-employment.
       ``(B) Definitions.--As used in this paragraph, the terms 
     `State' and `political subdivision' have the meanings given 
     those terms in section 218(b) of the Social Security Act.''.
       (3) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Subsection (j) of section 3121 of such Code (relating 
     to covered transportation service) is repealed.
       (B) Paragraph (2) of section 3121(u) of such Code (relating 
     to application of hospital insurance tax to Federal, State, 
     and local employment) is amended--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``service is 
     performed'' in clause (ii) and all that follows through the 
     end of such subparagraph and inserting ``service is service 
     described in subsection (t)(3)(A).''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (C)(i), by inserting ``under 
     subsection (b)(7) as in effect on December 31, 2001'' after 
     ``chapter''.
       (c) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, the amendments

[[Page 726]]

     made by this section shall apply with respect to service 
     performed after December 31, 2001.

     SEC. 8. INCREASE IN LENGTH OF COMPUTATION PERIOD FROM 35 TO 
                   38 YEARS.

       Section 215(b)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     415(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (iii)--
       (A) by striking ``age 62'' and inserting ``the applicable 
     age''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) the term `applicable age' means with respect to 
     individuals who attain age 62--
       ``(I) before 2002, age 62;
       ``(II) in 2002, age 63;
       ``(III) in 2003, age 64; and
       ``(IV) after 2003, age 65.''.

     SEC. 9. MODIFICATION OF PIA FACTORS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN 
                   LIFE EXPECTANCY.

       (a) Modification of PIA Factors.--Section 215(a)(1) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(1)(B)) is amended by 
     redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (F) and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) For individuals who initially become eligible for 
     old-age insurance benefits in any calendar year after 1999, 
     each of the percentages under clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of 
     subparagraph (A) shall be multiplied the applicable number of 
     times by .988 (.997, for any calendar year after 2017). For 
     purposes of the preceding sentence, the term `applicable 
     number of times' means a number equal to the lesser of 66 or 
     the number of years beginning with 2000 and ending with the 
     year of initial eligibility.
       ``(E) For any individual who initially becomes eligible for 
     disability insurance benefits in any calendar year after 
     1999, the primary insurance amount for such individual shall 
     be equal to the greater of--
       ``(i) such amount as determined under this paragraph, or
       ``(ii) such amount as determined under this paragraph 
     without regard to subparagraph (D) thereof.''.
       (b) Restoration of Normal Retirement Age at 65.--
       (1) In general.--Section 216(l)(1) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 416(l) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(l)(1) The term `retirement age' means 65 years of 
     age.''.
       (2) Conforming Amendments.--
       (A) Section 216(l) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     416(l)) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
       (B) Section 202(q) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(q)) is 
     amended--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Subject to paragraph 
     (9), if'' and inserting ``If''; and
       (ii) by striking paragraph (9).
       (c) Study of the Effect of Increases in Life Expectancy.--
       (1) Study plan.--Not later than February 15, 2001, the 
     Commissioner of Social Security shall submit to Congress a 
     detailed study plan for evaluating the effects of increases 
     in life expectancy on the expected level of retirement income 
     from social security, pensions, and other sources. The study 
     plan shall include a description of the methodology, data, 
     and funding that will be required in order to provide to 
     Congress not later than February 15, 2006--
       (A) an evaluation of trends in mortality and their 
     relationship to trends in health status, among individuals 
     approaching eligibility for social security retirement 
     benefits;
       (B) an evaluation of trends in labor force participation 
     among individuals approaching eligibility for social security 
     retirement benefits and among individuals receiving 
     retirement benefits, and of the factors that influence the 
     choice between retirement and participation in the labor 
     force;
       (C) an evaluation of changes, if any, in the social 
     security disability program that would reduce the impact of 
     changes in the retirement income of workers in poor health or 
     physically demanding occupations;
       (D) an evaluation of the methodology used to develop 
     projections for trends in mortality, health status, and labor 
     force participation among individuals approaching eligibility 
     for social security retirement benefits and among individuals 
     receiving retirement benefits; and
       (E) an evaluation of such other matters as the Commissioner 
     deems appropriate for evaluating the effects of increases in 
     life expectancy.
       (2) Report on results of study.--Not later than February 
     15, 2006, the Commissioner of Social Security shall provide 
     to Congress an evaluation of the implications of the trends 
     studied under paragraph (1), along with recommendations, if 
     any, of the extent to which the conclusions of such 
     evaluations indicate that projected increases in life 
     expectancy require modification in the social security 
     disability program and other income support programs.

     SEC. 10. ELIMINATION OF EARNINGS TEST FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO 
                   HAVE ATTAINED EARLY RETIREMENT AGE.

       (a) In General.--Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 403) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``the age of 
     seventy'' and inserting ``early retirement age (as defined in 
     section 216(l))'';
       (2) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2) of subsection (d), by 
     striking ``the age of seventy'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``early retirement age (as defined in section 
     216(l))'';
       (3) in subsection (f)(1)(B), by striking ``was age seventy 
     or over'' and inserting ``was at or above early retirement 
     age (as defined in section 216(l))'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(3)--
       (A) by striking ``33\1/3\ percent'' and all that follows 
     through ``any other individual,'' and inserting ``50 percent 
     of such individual's earnings for such year in excess of the 
     product of the exempt amount as determined under paragraph 
     (8),''; and
       (B) by striking ``age 70'' and inserting ``early retirement 
     age (as defined in section 216(l))'';
       (5) in subsection (h)(1)(A), by striking ``age 70'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``early retirement age (as 
     defined in section 216(l))''; and
       (6) in subsection (j)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Age Seventy'' and 
     inserting ``Early Retirement Age''; and
       (B) by striking ``seventy years of age'' and inserting 
     ``having attained early retirement age (as defined in section 
     216(l))''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments Eliminating the Special Exempt 
     Amount For Individuals Who Have Attained Age 62.--
       (1) Uniform exempt amount.--Section 203(f)(8)(A) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(A)) is amended by 
     striking ``the new exempt amounts (separately stated for 
     individuals described in subparagraph (D) and for other 
     individuals) which are to be applicable'' and inserting ``a 
     new exempt amount which shall be applicable''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 203(f)(8)(B) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(B)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
     ``Except'' and all that follows through ``whichever'' and 
     inserting ``The exempt amount which is applicable for each 
     month of a particular taxable year shall be whichever'';
       (B) in clauses (i) and (ii), by striking ``corresponding'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (C) in the last sentence, by striking ``an exempt amount'' 
     and inserting ``the exempt amount''.
       (3) Repeal of basis for computation of special exempt 
     amount.--Section 203(f)(8)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. (f)(8)(D)) is repealed.
       (c) Additional Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Elimination of redundant references to retirement 
     age.--Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403) 
     is amended--
       (A) in subsection (c), in the last sentence, by striking 
     ``nor shall any deduction'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``nor shall any deduction be made under this 
     subsection from any widow's or widower's insurance benefit if 
     the widow, surviving divorced wife, widower, or surviving 
     divorced husband involved became entitled to such benefit 
     prior to attaining age 60.''; and
       (B) in subsection (f)(1), by striking clause (D) and 
     inserting the following: ``(D) for which such individual is 
     entitled to widow's or widower's insurance benefits if such 
     individual became so entitled prior to attaining age 60,''.
       (2) Conforming amendment to provisions for determining 
     amount of increase on account of delayed retirement.--Section 
     202(w)(2)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     402(w)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``either''; and
       (B) by striking ``or suffered deductions under section 
     203(b) or 203(c) in amounts equal to the amount of such 
     benefit''.
       (3) Provisions relating to earnings taken into account in 
     determining substantial gainful activity of blind 
     individuals.--The second sentence of section 223(d)(4) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(4)) is amended by striking ``if 
     section 102 of the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996 
     had not been enacted'' and inserting the following: ``if the 
     amendments to section 203 made by section 102 of the Senior 
     Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996 and by the Social 
     Security Solvency Act of 1999 had not been enacted''.
       (d) Study of the Effect of Taking Earnings Into Account in 
     Determining Substantial Gainful Activity of Disabled 
     Individuals.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than February 15, 2001, the 
     Commissioner of Social Security shall conduct a study on the 
     effect that taking earnings into account in determining 
     substantial gainful activity of individuals receiving 
     disability insurance benefits has on the incentive for such 
     individuals to work and submit to Congress a report on the 
     study.
       (2) Contents of study.--The study conducted under paragraph 
     (1) shall include the evaluation of--
       (A) the effect of the current limit on earnings on the 
     incentive for individuals receiving disability insurance 
     benefits to work;
       (B) the effect of increasing the earnings limit or changing 
     the manner in which disability insurance benefits are reduced 
     or terminated as a result of substantial gainful activity 
     (including reducing the benefits gradually when the earnings 
     limit is exceeded) on--
       (i) the incentive to work; and

[[Page 727]]

       (ii) the financial status of the Federal Disability 
     Insurance Trust Fund;
       (C) the effect of extending eligibility for the Medicare 
     program to individuals during the period in which disability 
     insurance benefits of the individual are gradually reduced as 
     a result of substantial gainful activity and extending such 
     eligibility for a fixed period of time after the benefits are 
     terminated on--
       (i) the incentive to work; and
       (ii) the financial status of the Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance 
     Trust Fund; and
       (D) the relationship between the effect of substantial 
     gainful activity limits on blind individuals receiving 
     disability insurance benefits and other individuals receiving 
     disability insurance benefits.
       (3) Consultation.--The analysis under paragraph (2)(C) 
     shall be done in consultation with the Administrator of the 
     Health Care Financing Administration.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments and repeals made by 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall apply with respect to 
     taxable years ending after December 31, 2002.

     SEC. 11. SOCIAL SECURITY KIDSAVE ACCOUNTS.

       Title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et 
     seq.), as amended by section 3(a), is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

                       ``Part C--KidSave Accounts


                           ``kidsave accounts

       ``Sec. 261. (a) Establishment.--The Commissioner of Social 
     Security shall establish in the name of each individual born 
     on or after January 1, 1995, a KidSave Account described in 
     paragraph (1) of section 262(a), upon the later of--
       ``(1) the date of enactment of this part, or
       ``(2) the date of the issuance of a Social Security account 
     number under section 205(c)(2) to such individual.

     The KidSave Account shall be identified to the account holder 
     by means of the account holder's Social Security account 
     number.
       ``(b) Contributions.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary in order for the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     transfer from the general fund of the Treasury for crediting 
     by the Commissioner to each account holder's KidSave Account 
     under subsection (a), an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) in the case of any individual born on or after 
     January 1, 2000, $1000.00, on the date of the establishment 
     of such individual's KidSave Account, and
       ``(B) in the case of any individual born on or after 
     January 1, 1995, $500.00, on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th 
     birthdays of such individual occurring on or after January 1, 
     2000.
       ``(2) Adjustment for inflation.--For any calendar year 
     after 2009, each of the dollar amounts under paragraph (1) 
     shall be increased by the cost-of-living adjustment 
     determined under section 215(i) for the calendar year.
       ``(c) Designations Regarding KidSave Accounts.--
       ``(1) Initial designations of investment vehicle.--A person 
     described in subsection (d) shall, on behalf of the 
     individual described in subsection (a), designate the 
     investment vehicle for the KidSave Account to which 
     contributions on behalf of such individual are to be 
     deposited. Such designation shall be made on the application 
     for such individual's Social Security account number.
       ``(2) Changes in investment vehicles or types of kidsave 
     accounts.--The Commissioner shall by regulation provide the 
     time and manner by which--
       ``(A) an individual or a person described in subsection (d) 
     on behalf of such individual may change 1 or more investment 
     vehicles for a KidSave Account described in paragraph (1) of 
     section 262(a), and
       ``(B) an individual or a person described in subsection (d) 
     on behalf of such individual may designate a KidSave Account 
     described in paragraph (2) of section 262(a) or a voluntary 
     investment account described in paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     section 254(a) of the individual to which all or a portion of 
     the amounts in an existing KidSave Account described in 
     paragraph (1) of section 262(a) are to be transferred.
       ``(d) Treatment of Minors and Incompetent Individuals.--Any 
     designation under subsection (c) to be made by a minor, or an 
     individual mentally incompetent or under other legal 
     disability, may be made by the person who is constituted 
     guardian or other fiduciary by the law of the State of 
     residence of the individual or is otherwise legally vested 
     with the care of the individual or his estate. Payment under 
     this part due a minor, or an individual mentally incompetent 
     or under other legal disability, may be made to the person 
     who is constituted guardian or other fiduciary by the law of 
     the State of residence of the claimant or is otherwise 
     legally vested with the care of the claimant or his estate. 
     In any case in which a guardian or other fiduciary of the 
     individual under legal disability has not been appointed 
     under the law of the State of residence of the individual, if 
     any other person, in the judgment of the Commissioner, is 
     responsible for the care of such individual, any designation 
     under subsection (c) which may otherwise be made by such 
     individual may be made by such person, any payment under this 
     part which is otherwise payable to such individual may be 
     made to such person, and the payment of an annuity payment 
     under this part to such person bars recovery by any other 
     person.


                    ``definitions and special rules

       ``Sec. 262. (a) Kidsave Accounts.--For purposes of this 
     part--
       ``(1) a KidSave Account described in this paragraph is a 
     KidSave Account in the Voluntary Investment Fund (established 
     under section 255(a)), and
       ``(2) a Kidsave Account described in this paragraph is any 
     individual retirement plan (as defined in section 7701(a)(37) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), other than a Roth IRA 
     (as defined in section 408A(b) of such Code), which is 
     designated by an individual as a KidSave Account (in such 
     manner as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe) and 
     which is administered or issued by a bank or other person 
     referred to in section 408(a)(2) of such Code.
       ``(b) Treatment of Accounts.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) any KidSave Account described in subsection (a)(1) 
     shall be treated in the same manner as an account in the 
     Thrift Savings Fund under subchapter III of chapter 84 of 
     title 5, United States Code, and
       ``(B) any KidSave Account described in subsection (a)(2) 
     shall be treated in the same manner as an individual 
     retirement plan (as so defined).
       ``(2) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) Contribution limit.--The aggregate amount of 
     contributions for any taxable year to all KidSave Accounts of 
     an individual shall not exceed the contribution made pursuant 
     to section 261(b) for such year on behalf of such individual.
       ``(B) Rollover contributions.--No rollover contribution may 
     be made to a KidSave Account unless it is from another 
     KidSave Account. A rollover described in the preceding 
     sentence shall not be taken into account for purposes of 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Distributions.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, distributions may only be made from a KidSave Account 
     of an individual on or after the earlier of--
       ``(i) the date on which the individual begins receiving 
     benefits under this title, or
       ``(ii) the date of the individual's death.''.
                                  ____


Social Security Solvency Act of 1999 Introduced on January 19, 1999, by 
     Senators Moynihan and Kerrey--Brief Description of Provisions


    i. reduce payroll taxes and return to pay-as-you-go system with 
                  voluntary personal savings accounts

     A. Reduce payroll taxes and return to pay-as-you-go
       The bill would return Social Security to a pay-as-you-go 
     system. That is, payroll tax rates would be adjusted so that 
     annual revenues from taxes closely match annual outlays. This 
     makes possible an immediate payroll tax cut of approximately 
     $800 billion over the next 10 years, with reduced rates 
     remaining in place for the next 30 years. Payroll tax rates 
     would be cut from 12.4 to 10.4 percent for the period 2002 to 
     2029, and the rate would not increase above 12.4 percent 
     until 2035. Even in the out-years, the pay-as-you-go rates 
     under the plan will increase only slightly above the current 
     rate of 12.4 percent. Based on estimates prepared last year 
     the proposed rate schedule is:

Years:                                                          Percent
  2002-2029........................................................10.4
  2030-2034........................................................12.4
  2035-2049........................................................12.9
  2050-2059........................................................13.3
  2060 and thereafter..............................................13.7

       To ensure continued solvency, the Board of Trustees of the 
     Social Security Trust Funds would make recommendations for a 
     new pay-as-you-go tax rate schedule if the Trust Funds fall 
     out of close actuarial balance. The new tax rate schedule 
     would be considered by Congress under fast track procedures.
     B. Personal savings accounts
       Beginning in 2002, the bill would permit voluntary personal 
     savings accounts which workers could finance with the 
     proceeds of the two percentage point cut in the payroll tax. 
     Alternatively, a worker could simply take the employee share 
     of the tax cut (one percent of wages) as an increase in take-
     home pay. In addition, KidSave accounts, of up to $3,500, 
     would be opened for all children born in 1995 or later.
     C. Increase in amount of wages subject to tax
       Under current law, the Social Security payroll tax applies 
     only to the first $72,600 of wages in 1999. At that level, 
     about 85 percent of wages in covered employment are taxed. 
     That percentage has been falling because wages of persons 
     above the taxable maximum have been growing faster than wages 
     of persons below it.
       Historically, about 90 percent of wages have been subject 
     to tax. Under the bill, the taxable maximum would be 
     increased to $99,900 (thereby imposing the tax on about 87 
     percent of wages) by 2004. Thereafter, automatic changes in 
     the base, tied to increases in average wages, would be 
     resumed. (Under current law, the taxable maximum is projected 
     to increase to $84,900 in 2004, with

[[Page 728]]

     automatic changes also continuing thereafter.)


                       II. INDEXATION PROVISIONS

     A. Correct cost of living adjustments by one percentage point
       The bill includes a one percentage point correction in cost 
     of living adjustments. The correction would apply to all 
     indexed programs (outlays and revenues) except Supplemental 
     Security Income. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has made some 
     improvements in the Consumer Price Index, but most of these 
     were already taken into account when the Boskin Commission 
     appointed by the Senate Finance Committee reported in 1996 
     that the overstatement of the cost of living by the CPI was 
     1.1 percentage points.\1\ Members of the Commission believe 
     that the overstatement will average about one percentage 
     point for the next several years. The proposed legislation 
     would also establish a Cost of Living Board to determine on 
     an annual basis if further refinements are necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ A number of improvements announced by the BLS after this 
     legislation was first introduced in 1998 would lower the 
     reported change in prices. The authors are considering what 
     modifications, if any, should be made to the bill as a result 
     of the BLS announcements. They are also discussing, with the 
     Social Security actuaries, the effects of this change on the 
     long-run projections made by the actuaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     B. Adjustments in monthly benefits related to changes in life 
         expectancy
       Under current law, the so-called normal retirement age 
     (NRA) is scheduled to gradually increase from age 65 to 67. 
     In practice, the NRA is important as a benchmark for 
     determining the monthly benefit amount, but it does not 
     reflect the actual age at which workers receive retirement 
     benefits. More than 70 percent of workers begin collecting 
     Social Security retirement benefits before they reach age 65, 
     and more than 50 percent do so at age 62. Under the bill, 
     workers can continue to receive benefits at age 62 and the 
     provision in the 1983 Social Security amendments that 
     increased the NRA to 67 is repealed. Instead, under this 
     legislation, if life expectancy increases the level of 
     monthly benefits payable at age 65 (or at the age at which 
     the worker actually retires) decreases.
       These changes in monthly benefits are a form of indexation 
     that mirrors the projected gradual increase in life 
     expectancy over a period of more than 100 years. For example, 
     persons who retired in 1960 at age 65 had a life expectancy, 
     at age 65, of 15 years and spent about 25 percent of their 
     adult life in retirement. Persons retiring in 2060, at age 
     70, are projected to have a life expectancy at age 70 of more 
     than 16 years, and thus would also spend about 25 percent of 
     their adult life in retirement.


          III. PROGRAM SIMPLIFICATION--REPEAL OF EARNINGS TEST

       The so-called earnings test would be eliminated for all 
     beneficiaries age 62 and over, beginning in 2003. (Under 
     current law, the test increases to $30,000 in 2002.) Under 
     the earnings test benefits are withheld (reduced) for one 
     million beneficiaries because wages are in excess of the 
     earnings limit. This is an unnecessary administrative burden 
     because beneficiaries eventually receive all of the benefits 
     that are withheld. Indeed, Social Security Administration 
     actuaries estimate that the long-run cost of repealing the 
     earnings test is zero.


                           iv. other changes

       All three factions of the 1994-96 Social Security Advisory 
     Council supported some variation of the following common 
     sense changes in the program.
     A. Normal Taxation of Benefits
       Social Security benefits would be taxed to the same extent 
     private pensions are taxed. That is, Social Security benefits 
     would be taxed to the extent that the worker's benefits 
     exceed his or her contributions to the system (currently 
     about 95 percent of benefits would be taxed). This provision 
     would be phased-in over the 5 year period 2000-2004.
     B. Coverage of Newly Hired State and Local Employees
       Effective in 2002, Social Security coverage would be 
     extended to newly hired employees in currently excluded State 
     and local positions. Inclusion of State and local workers is 
     sound public policy because most of the five million State 
     and local employees (about a quarter of all State and local 
     employees) not covered by Social Security in their government 
     employment do receive Social Security benefits as a result of 
     working at other jobs--part-time or otherwise--that are 
     covered by Social Security. Relative to their contributions 
     these workers receive generous benefits.
     C. Increase in Length of Computation Period
       The legislation would increase the length of the 
     computation period from 35 to 38 years. Consistent with the 
     increase in life expectancy and the increase in the 
     retirement age we would expect workers to have more years 
     with earnings. Computation of their benefits should be based 
     on these additional years of earnings.


                       summary of budget effects

       The legislation provides for long-run solvency of Social 
     Security, with little or no effect on the budget surplus. In 
     the Economic and Budget Outlook: Update, released in August, 
     1998, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that 
     for the five-year period FY 1999-2003, the cumulative surplus 
     would be $520 billion, and $1.548 trillion for the ten-year 
     period FY 1999-2008. Preliminary estimates, based on these 
     budget projections, indicate that this legislation, while 
     preserving Social Security, and while reducing payroll taxes 
     by almost $800 billion, will reduce the ten-year cumulative 
     surplus by less than $200 billion. In no year is there a 
     budget deficit. (CBO will provide updated budget estimates 
     after its new baseline is released later this month.)--
     Prepared by the Senate Finance Committee Minority Staff, 
     January, 1999.

    PAY-AS-YOU-GO PAYROLL TAX RATES REQUIRED TO FUND SOCIAL SECURITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Social
                                                      Assuming  Security
                        Year                             no     Solvency
                                                       program   Act of
                                                       changes    1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002................................................     10.40     10.40
2005................................................     10.40     10.40
2010................................................     10.40     10.40
2015................................................     12.40     10.40
2020................................................     15.20     10.40
2025................................................     16.50     10.40
2030................................................     17.00     12.40
2035................................................     17.00     12.90
2040................................................     17.00     12.90
2045................................................     17.00     12.90
2050................................................     17.00     13.30
2055................................................     17.80     13.30
2060................................................     17.80     13.70
2065................................................     17.80     13.70
2070................................................     18.30     13.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The Social Security payroll tax rate is fixed by statute at 12.4
  percent. Assuming no program changes the current law program is not
  sustainable. In 2013, outgo for the OASDI program will exceed tax
  revenues. In 2032, all OASDI assets (reserves) will be expended, after
  which tax revenues will only be sufficient to pay 75 percent or less
  or promised benefits.


                                                      CBO BUDGET ESTIMATES--FISCAL YEARS 1999-2008
                                                                (In billions of dollars)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                     Cumulative surplus
                                                                                                                                   ---------------------
                              Year                               1999  2000  2001   2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   5 years    10 years
                                                                                                                                    1999-2003  1999-2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated surplus under current policies: CBO summer 1998          80    79    86    139    136    154    170    217    236    251      520       1,548
 budget projection.............................................
Estimated surplus under the Social Security Solvency Act of        80    48    50     92     89    121    153    211    240    268      359       1,352
 1999..........................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by the Senate Finance Committee Minority Staff based on the Congressional Budget Office Summer 1998 Budget projection and preliminary estimate
  of the Social Security Solvency Act of 1999. January 1999.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Helms, Mr. Lott, Mr. Daschle, 
        Mr. Thompson, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 22. A bill to provide for a system to classify information in the 
interests of national security and a system to declassify information, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                   the government secrecy reform act

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Government 
Secrecy Reform Act. I would like to begin by thanking my cosponsors, 
Senators Helms, Lott, Daschle, Thompson, Collins, and Schumer. The 
legislation that we introduce today is intended to implement the core 
recommendation of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government 
Secrecy: a statute establishing the principles to govern the 
classification and declassification of information.
  The Federal government has a legitimate interest in maintaining 
secrets in order to fulfill its Constitutional charge to ``provide for 
the common defense.'' At the same time, this interest must be balanced 
by the public's right to be informed of government activities.

[[Page 729]]

  The Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy, which I 
chaired, found a secrecy system out of balance: one which has lost the 
confidence of many inside and outside the Government. Consequently, 
information needing protection does not always receive it, while 
innocuous information is classified and remains classified. The 
Commission found in its 1997 report that ``[t]he best way to ensure 
that secrecy is respected, and that the most important secrets remain 
secret, is for secrecy to be returned to its limited but necessary 
role. Secrets can be protected more effectively if secrecy is reduced 
overall.''
  Begin with the concept that secrecy should be understood as a form of 
government regulation. This was an insight of the Commission, building 
on the work of the great German sociologist Max Weber. The instinct of 
the bureaucracy, Weber wrote, was to ``increase the superiority of the 
professionally informed by keeping their knowledge and intentions 
secret.'' The concept of the ``official secret'' ``is the specific 
invention of bureaucracy, and nothing is so fanatically defended by the 
bureaucracy as this attitude.''
  We traditionally think of regulation as a means to govern how 
citizens are to behave. Whereas public regulation involves what 
citizens may do, secrecy concerns what citizens may know. And the 
citizen does not know what may not be known. As our Commission stated: 
``Americans are familiar with the tendency to overregulate in other 
areas. What is different with secrecy is that the public cannot know 
the extent or the content of the regulation.''
  Thus, secrecy is the ultimate mode of regulation; the citizen does 
not even know that he or she is being regulated! It is a parallel 
regulatory regime with a far greater potential for damage if it 
malfunctions. In our democracy, where the free exchange of ideas is so 
essential, it can be suffocating.
  To reform this system, the Commission recommended legislation be 
adopted. Senator Jesse Helms and I, and Representatives Larry Combest 
and Lee Hamilton (all Commissioners), introduced the Government Secrecy 
Act on May 7, 1997. Our core objective is to ensure that secrecy 
proceed according to law. Since the Truman Administration, 
classification and declassification have been governed by a series of 
executive orders but not one has created a stable and reliable system 
to ensure we protect what truly needs protecting and nothing more. The 
system lacks the discipline of a legal framework to define and enforce 
the proper uses of secrecy. The proposed statute can help ensure that 
the present regulatory regime will not simply continue to flourish 
without any restraint and without meaningful oversight and 
accountability.
  The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Chaired by Senator 
Thompson of Tennessee, considered the bill in the 105th Congress and 
reported it unanimously. In its report to accompany the bill, the 
Committee had this important insight:

       Our liberties depend on the balanced structure created by 
     James Madison and the other framers of the Constitution. The 
     national security information system has not had a clear 
     legislative foundation, but . . . has been developed through 
     a series of executive orders. It is time to bring this 
     executive monopoly over the issue to an end, and to begin to 
     engage in the same sort of dialogue between Congress and the 
     executive that characterizes the development of government 
     policy in all other means.

  As the Cold War gathered, this ``executive monopoly'' as the 
Governmental Affairs Committee has termed it, was spawned. The United 
States had to organize itself to deal with aggression from the Soviet 
Union. American society in peacetime began to experience wartime 
regulation. The awful dilemma was that in order to preserve an open 
society, the U.S. government took measures that in significant ways 
closed it down. The culture of secrecy that evolved was intended as a 
defense against two antagonists: the enemy abroad and the enemy within.
  Edward Shils chronicled the perils of this growing secrecy system in 
his 1956 work, The Torment of Secrecy. He said of this era:

       The American visage began to cloud over. Secrets were to 
     become our chief reliance just when it was becoming more and 
     more evident that the Soviet Union had long maintained an 
     active apparatus for espionage in the United States. For a 
     country which had never previously thought of itself as an 
     object of systematic espionage by foreign powers, it was 
     unsettling.

  The larger society, Shils continued, was ``facing an unprecedented 
threat to its continuance.'' In such circumstances, ``the phantasies of 
apocalyptic visionaries now claimed the respectability of being a 
reasonable interpretation of the real situation.''
  Shils was writing, as he explained in his Foreword, ``after nearly a 
decade of degrading agitation and numerous unnecessary and unworthy 
actions . . .'' Today, by contrast, the public and its representatives 
have few of the concerns of ideological ``infiltration'' that dominated 
our attention and our domestic politics during the decade preceding 
Shils' book.
  Indeed, if there is such a thing as a ``typical'' case of espionage, 
it involves an employee well into mid-career who sells national 
security secrets out of greed, not because of any ideologically-based 
motivation.
  Moreover, today it is the United States government that increasingly 
finds itself the object of what Shils four decades ago termed the 
``phantasies of apocalyptic visionaries.''
  Conspiracy theories have been with us since the birth of the 
Republic. The best-known and most notorious is, of course, the 
unwillingness on the part of the vast majority of the American public 
to accept that President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 by Lee Harvey 
Oswald acting alone. A poll taken in 1966, two years after release of 
the Warren Commission report concluding that Oswald had acted alone, 
found that 36 percent of respondents accepted this finding, while 50 
percent believed others had been involved in a conspiracy to kill the 
President. By 1978 only 18 percent responded that they believed the 
assassination had been the act of one man; fully 75 percent believed 
there had been a broader plot. The numbers have remained relatively 
steady since; a 1993 poll also found that three-quarters of those 
surveyed believed (consistent with the film ``JFK,'' released that 
year) that there had been a conspiracy.
  It so happens that I was in the White House at the hour of the 
President's death (I was an Assistant Labor Secretary at the time). I 
feared what would become of Oswald if he were not protected and I 
pleaded that we must get custody of him. But no one seemed to be able 
to hear. Presently Oswald was killed, significantly complicating 
matters.
  I did not think there had been a conspiracy to kill the President, 
but I was convinced that the American people would sooner or later come 
to believe that there had been one unless we investigated the event 
with exactly that presumption in mind. The Warren Commission report and 
the other subsequent investigations, with their nearly universal 
reliance on secrecy, did not dispel any such fantasies.
  The Assassination Records Review Board has now completed its 
congressionally mandated review and release of documents related to 
President Kennedy's assassination. It has assembled at the National 
Archives a thorough collection of documents and evidence that was 
previously secret and scattered about the government. The Review Board 
found that while the public has continued to search for answers over 
the past thirty-five years:

       [T]he official record on the assassination of President 
     Kennedy remained shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
       The suspicions created by government secrecy eroded 
     confidence in the truthfulness of federal agencies in general 
     and damaged their credibility.

  Credibility eroded needlessly, as most of the documents which the 
Board reviewed were declassified. In conducting this document-by-
document review of classified information, the Board reports that ``the 
federal government needlessly and wastefully classified and then 
withheld from public access countless important records that did not 
require such treatment.''
  With the Government Secrecy Reform Act, we are not proposing putting 
an end to government secrecy. Far from it. It is at times terribly 
necessary and used for the most legitimate

[[Page 730]]

reasons--ranging from military operations to diplomatic endeavors. 
Indeed, much of our Commission's report is devoted to explaining the 
varied circumstances in which secrecy is most essential. Yet, the 
bureaucratic attachment to secrecy has become so warped that, in the 
words of Kermit Hall, a member of the Assassination Records Review 
Board, it has transformed into ``a deeply ingrained commitment to 
secrecy as a form of partriotism.'' From this perspective, it is easy 
to see how secrecy became the norm.
  Secrecy need not remain the only norm--particularly when one 
considers that the current badly overextended system frequently fails 
to protect its most important secrets adequately. We must develop what 
might be termed a competing ``culture of openness''--fully consistent 
with our interests in protecting national security. A culture in which 
power and authority are no longer derived primarily from one's ability 
to withhold information from others in government and the public at 
large.
  This is our purpose in introducing the Government Secrecy Reform Act. 
I thank those who have agreed to cosponsor the bill and ask my 
colleagues to lend it the attention it deserves.
  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. 22

       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 ``Government Secrecy Reform 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. CLASSIFICATION AND DECLASSIFICATION OF INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--The President may, in accordance with the 
     provisions of this Act, protect from unauthorized disclosure 
     any information owned by, produced by or for, or under the 
     control of the executive branch when there is a demonstrable 
     need to do so in order to protect the national security of 
     the United States.
       (b) Establishment of Standards and Procedures for 
     Classification and Declassification.--
       (1) Governmentwide procedures.--
       (A) Classification.--The President shall, to the extent 
     necessary, establish categories of information that may be 
     classified and procedures for classifying information under 
     subsection (a).
       (B) Declassification.--At the same time the President 
     establishes categories and procedures under subparagraph (A), 
     the President shall establish procedures for declassifying 
     information that was previously classified.
       (2) Notice and comment.--
       (A) Notice.--The President shall publish in the Federal 
     Register notice regarding the categories and procedures 
     proposed to be established under paragraph (1).
       (B) Comment.--The President shall provide an opportunity 
     for interested persons to submit comments on the categories 
     and procedures covered by subparagraph (A).
       (C) Deadline.--The President shall complete the 
     establishment of categories and procedures under paragraph 
     (1) not later than 60 days after publishing notice in the 
     Federal Register under subparagraph (A). Upon completion of 
     the establishment of such categories and procedures, the 
     President shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
     regarding such categories and procedures.
       (3) Modification.--In the event the President determines to 
     modify any categories or procedures established under 
     paragraph (1), subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) 
     shall apply to such modification.
       (4) Agency standards and procedures.--
       (A) In general.--The head of each agency shall establish 
     standards and procedures to permit such agency to classify 
     and declassify information created by such agency in 
     accordance with the categories and procedures established by 
     the President under this section and otherwise to carry out 
     the provisions of this Act. Such standards and procedures 
     shall include mechanisms to minimize the risk of inadvertent 
     or inappropriate declassification of previously classified 
     information (including information classified by other 
     agencies).
       (B) Guidance.--
       (i) In general.--The President shall require the head of 
     each agency with original classification authority to produce 
     written guidance on the classification and declassification 
     of information in order to improve the classification and 
     declassification of information by such agency and the 
     derivative classification of information and declassification 
     of derivatively classified information by such agency and 
     other agencies. Such guidance may be treated as classified 
     information under this Act.
       (ii) Declassification period for certain information.--

       (I) In general.--In producing written guidance under clause 
     (i), the head of an agency may specify types and categories 
     of information that may remain classified for up to 25 years 
     after the date of original classification.
       (II) Approval required.--The specification of a type or 
     category of information under subclause (I) shall be 
     effective only with the approval of the Director of the 
     Office of National Classification and Declassification 
     Oversight.

       (C) Deadline.--Each agency head shall establish standards 
     and procedures under subparagraph (A) and produce written 
     guidance under subparagraph (B) not later than 60 days after 
     the date on which the President publishes notice under 
     paragraph (2)(C) of the categories and standards established 
     by the President under paragraph (1).
       (D) Publication.--Each agency head shall publish in the 
     Federal Register the standards and procedures established by 
     such agency head under subparagraph (A).
       (c) Standard for Classification and Declassification 
     Decisions.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), information may 
     be classified under this Act, and classified information 
     under review for declassification under this Act may remain 
     classified, only if the harm to national security that might 
     reasonably be expected from disclosure of such information 
     outweighs the public interest in disclosure of such 
     information.
       (2) Default rule.--In the event of significant doubt 
     whether the harm to national security that might reasonably 
     be expected from the disclosure of information would outweigh 
     the public interest in the disclosure of such information, 
     such information shall not be classified or, in the case of 
     classified information under review for declassification, 
     declassified.
       (3) Factors in decisions.--
       (A) In general.--The President shall prescribe the factors 
     to be utilized in deciding for purposes of paragraph (1) 
     whether the disclosure of information might reasonably be 
     expected to harm national security or might serve the public 
     interest.
       (B) Guidance.--In prescribing factors under subparagraph 
     (A), the President shall also prescribe guidance to be 
     utilized in applying such factors. The guidance shall specify 
     with reasonable detail the weight to be assigned each factor 
     and the manner of balancing among opposing factors of similar 
     or different weight.
       (C) Process.--The President shall prescribe factors and 
     guidance under this paragraph at the same time the President 
     establishes categories and procedures under subsection (b)(1) 
     and subject to the notice and comment procedures set forth 
     under subsection (b)(2).
       (d) Written Justification for Classification.--
       (1) Original classification.--Each agency official who 
     makes a decision to classify information not previously 
     classified shall, at the time of such decision--
       (A) identify himself or herself; 
       (B) provide in writing a detailed justification of that 
     decision; and
       (C) indicate the basis for the classification of the 
     information with reference to the written guidance produced 
     under subsection (b)(4)(B).
       (2) Derivative classification.--In any case in which an 
     agency official or contractor employee classifies a document 
     on the basis of information previously classified that is 
     included or referenced in the document, the official or 
     employee, as the case may be, shall--
       (A) identify himself or herself in that document; and
       (B) provide a concise explanation of that decision.
       (e) Declassification of Information Classified Under Act.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), 
     and (4), information classified under this Act may not remain 
     classified under this Act after the date that is 10 years 
     after the date of the original classification of the 
     information.
       (2) Earlier declassification.--When classifying information 
     under this Act, an agency official may provide for the 
     declassification of the information as of a date or event 
     that is earlier than the date otherwise provided for under 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Later declassification.--
       (A) In general.--When classifying information under this 
     Act, an agency official with original classification 
     authority over the information may provide for the 
     declassification of the information on a date that is up to 
     25 years after the date of original classification in 
     accordance with the guidance approved under subsection 
     (b)(4)(B)(ii).
       (B) Postponement.--The actual date of the declassification 
     of information referred to in subparagraph (A) may be 
     postponed under paragraph (4)(D).
       (4) Postponement of declassification.--
       (A) In general.--The declassification of any information or 
     category of information that would otherwise be declassified 
     under paragraph (1) or (2) may be postponed if an official of 
     the agency with original classification authority over the 
     information or

[[Page 731]]

     category of information, as the case may be, determines, 
     before the time of declassification for such information 
     otherwise provided for under paragraph (1) or (2), as the 
     case may be, that the information or category of information, 
     as the case may be, should remain classified.
       (B) Procedure.--An official may not implement a 
     determination under subparagraph (A) until the official 
     obtains the concurrence of the Director of the Office of 
     National Classification and Declassification Oversight in the 
     determination.
       (C) General duration of postponement.--Except as provided 
     in subparagraph (D), information the declassification of 
     which is postponed under this paragraph may remain classified 
     not longer than 15 years after the date of the postponement.
       (D) Extended duration of postponement.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to clauses (ii) and (iii), the 
     declassification of any information that would otherwise be 
     declassified under subparagraph (C) or paragraph (3) may be 
     postponed if an official of the agency with original 
     classification authority over the information determines that 
     extraordinary circumstances require that the information 
     remain classified.
       (ii) Procedures.--An official may not implement a 
     determination under clause (i) until the official--

       (I) obtains the concurrence of the Director of the Office 
     of National Classification and Declassification Oversight in 
     the determination; and
       (II) submits to the President a certification of the 
     determination.

       (iii) Review.--The President shall establish a schedule for 
     the review of the need for continued classification of any 
     information the declassification of which is postponed under 
     this subparagraph. Such information shall be declassified at 
     the earliest possible time after the termination of the 
     circumstances with respect to such information referred to in 
     clause (i).
       (E) Concurrences.--A concurrence at the direction of the 
     Classification and Declassification Review Board on appeal 
     under section 4(c)(2) and a concurrence at the direction of 
     the President on appeal under section 5(a) shall be treated 
     as a concurrence of the Director of the Office of National 
     Classification and Declassification Oversight for purposes of 
     subparagraphs (B) and (D)(ii)(I).
       (5) Approval required for declassification of 
     information.--Except as provided in this Act, no information 
     classified under this Act may be declassified or released 
     without the approval of the agency that originally classified 
     the information.
       (6) Specification of declassification date or event.--Each 
     agency official making a decision to classify information 
     under this subsection shall specify upon such information the 
     date or event of its declassification.
       (f) Declassification of Current Classified Information.--
       (1) Procedures.--The President shall establish procedures 
     for declassifying information that was classified before the 
     effective date of this Act. Such procedures shall, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, be consistent with the provisions 
     of this section.
       (2) Automatic Declassification.--The procedures established 
     under paragraph (1) shall include procedures for the 
     automatic declassification of information referred to in that 
     paragraph that has remained classified for more than 25 years 
     as of the effective date referred to in that paragraph.
       (3) Notice and comment.--
       (A) Notice.--The President shall publish notice in the 
     Federal Register of the procedures proposed to be established 
     under this subsection.
       (B) Comment.--The President shall provide an opportunity 
     for interested persons to submit comments on the procedures 
     covered by subparagraph (A).
       (C) Deadline.--The President shall complete the 
     establishment of procedures under this subsection not later 
     than 60 days after publishing notice in the Federal Register 
     under subparagraph (A). Upon completion of the establishment 
     of such procedures, the President shall publish in the 
     Federal Register notice regarding such procedures.
       (g) Conforming Amendment to FOIA.--Section 552(b)(1) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) (A) specifically authorized to be classified under 
     the Government Secrecy Reform Act of 1999 or specifically 
     authorized under criteria established by an Executive order 
     to be kept secret in the interest of national security and 
     (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to that Act or 
     Executive order;''.

     SEC. 3. OFFICE OF NATIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND 
                   DECLASSIFICATION OVERSIGHT.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--There is established within the National 
     Archives and Records Administration an office to be known as 
     the Office of National Classification and Declassification 
     Oversight (in this section referred to as the ``Oversight 
     Office'').
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of the Oversight Office is to 
     standardize the policies and procedures used by agencies to 
     assess information for initial classification and to review 
     information for declassification.
       (3) Policy guidance.--On behalf of the President, the 
     Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs 
     shall provide policy guidance to the Oversight Office.
       (4) Budget.--
       (A) Consultation in preparation.--The Archivist of the 
     United States shall consult with the Assistant to the 
     President for National Security Affairs and the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget in preparing the annual 
     budget request for the Oversight Office.
       (B) Presentation.--The annual budget request for the 
     Oversight Office shall appear as a distinct item in the 
     annual budget request of the National Archives and Records 
     Administration.
       (b) Director.--
       (1) In general.--There shall be a Director of the Office of 
     National Classification and Declassification Oversight who 
     shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice 
     and consent of the Senate. The Director shall be the head of 
     the Oversight Office.
       (2) Qualifications.--To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     President shall nominate for appointment as Director 
     individuals who have experience in policy relating to 
     classification and declassification of information, records 
     management, and information technology.
       (3) Supervision.--The Director shall report directly to the 
     Archivist of the United States.
       (4) Executive schedule.--Section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``Director, Office of National Classification and 
     Declassification Oversight.''.
       (c) Personnel and Resources.--
       (1) Transfer.--All personnel, funds, and other resources of 
     the Information Security Oversight Office are hereby 
     transferred to the Oversight Office and shall constitute the 
     personnel, funds, and other resources of the Oversight 
     Office.
       (2) Interim director.--The Director of the Information 
     Security Oversight Office shall serve as acting Director of 
     the Oversight Office until a Director of the Oversight Office 
     is appointed under subsection (b)(1).
       (d) Duties.--The Oversight Office shall--
       (1) coordinate and oversee the classification and 
     declassification policies and practices of agencies in order 
     to ensure the compliance of such policies and procedures with 
     the provisions of this Act;
       (2) develop and issue directives, instructions, and 
     educational aids and forms to assist in the implementation of 
     the provisions of this Act;
       (3) develop a program of research and development of 
     technologies to improve the efficiency of classification and 
     declassification processes under this Act;
       (4) determine whether or not information is classified in 
     violation of this Act and order that information determined 
     to be classified in violation of this Act be declassified by 
     the agency that originated the classification;
       (5) determine whether an agency determination to postpone 
     the declassification of information under section 2(e)(4) is 
     consistent with the provisions of this Act;
       (6) review the proposed budgets of agencies for 
     classification and declassification programs and make 
     recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget as to 
     means of ensuring that such budgets provide sufficient funds 
     to permit agencies to comply with the requirements of this 
     Act;
       (7) oversee special access programs consistent with its 
     other duties under this section;
       (8) conduct audits and on-site reviews of agency 
     classification and declassification programs; and
       (9) establish and maintain a Government-wide database on 
     the declassification activities of the Government, including 
     an unclassified version of the database available to the 
     public.
       (e) Agency Cooperation.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to the control and supervision of 
     the President, each agency shall provide the Oversight Office 
     such information and other cooperation as the Director of the 
     Oversight Office considers appropriate to permit the 
     Oversight Office to carry out its duties.
       (2) Special access programs.--The head of an agency with 
     jurisdiction over special access programs may--
       (A) limit access to such programs to not more than the 
     Director and one other employee of the Oversight Office; and
       (B) upon the concurrence of the President, deny access by 
     the Oversight Office to any such program if the head of such 
     agency determines that such access would pose an exceptional 
     risk to national security.
       (f) Appeals from Certain Decisions.--
       (1) In general.--An agency may appeal to the Classification 
     and Declassification Review Board any declassification order 
     or determination under paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection 
     (d).
       (2) Deadline.--An agency may appeal an order or 
     determination under paragraph (1) only if the agency submits 
     the appeal to the Board not later than 60 days after the date 
     of the order or determination, as the case may be.
       (g) Protection of Information.--The Director of the 
     Oversight Office shall take appropriate actions to prevent 
     disclosure to

[[Page 732]]

     the public of classified information that is provided to the 
     Oversight Office. Such actions shall include a requirement 
     that the staff of the Oversight Office possess security 
     clearances appropriate for the information considered and 
     reviewed by the Oversight Office.
       (h) Annual Report.--
       (1) Requirement.--Not later than March 31 each year, the 
     Director of the Oversight Office shall submit to Congress and 
     to the President a report on the compliance of agencies with 
     the requirements of this Act.
       (2) Elements.--Each report under paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) include a summary of the extent of the compliance of 
     agencies Government-wide with the requirements of this Act as 
     of the date of such report; and
       (B) set forth an assessment of the compliance of each 
     agency with such requirements as of that date.
       (3) Form.--Each report under paragraph (1) shall be 
     submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
     annex.
       (4) Availability.--The Oversight Office shall make 
     available to the public the unclassified form of each report 
     under paragraph (1) on an Internet Web site maintained by the 
     Oversight Office.

     SEC. 4. CLASSIFICATION AND DECLASSIFICATION REVIEW BOARD.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Executive Office of the President a board to be known as the 
     Classification and Declassification Review Board (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Board'').
       (b) Membership and Procedural Matters.--
       (1) In general.--The Board shall consist of five members 
     appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate, of whom--
       (A) four shall be private citizens;
       (B) two shall be officers or employees of the Federal 
     Government; and
       (2) Qualifications.--
       (A) Private citizens.--The members of the Board who are 
     private citizens shall be appointed from among individuals 
     who are distinguished historians, political scientists, 
     archivists, and other social scientists or who otherwise have 
     demonstrated expertise in matters relating to the national 
     security of the United States, records management, or 
     government information policy.
       (B) Government employees.--The members of the Board who are 
     officers or employees of the Federal Government shall be 
     appointed from among such officers and employees who have 
     demonstrated expertise in matters referred to in subparagraph 
     (A).
       (C) Change in employment.--Notwithstanding any provision of 
     paragraph (1), the commencement or termination of service as 
     an officer or employee of the Federal Government of an 
     individual appointed as a member of the Board under that 
     paragraph before such commencement or termination shall not 
     affect the continuation of such individual as a member of the 
     Board.
       (3) Nominations.--
       (A) Consultation.--In nominating individuals for 
     appointment to the Board, the President shall consult with 
     the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Attorney 
     General, Assistant to the President for National Security 
     Affairs, Director of Central Intelligence, Archivist of the 
     United States, and Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget.
       (B) Limitation.--The President may not nominate for 
     appointment to the Board any individual who has previously 
     served as a member of the Board.
       (C) Initial nominations.--The President shall make the 
     first nominations of individuals for appointment to the Board 
     not later than 120 days after the effective date of this Act.
       (D) Bipartisan Representation.--Of the members of the Board 
     appointed under paragraph (1)(A), not more than two shall be 
     of the same political party.
       (4) Presiding Officer.--The President shall designate a 
     member of the Board appointed under paragraph (1)(A) to serve 
     as the Presiding Officer of the Board.
       (5) Term.--Members of the Board shall be appointed for a 
     term of 4 years, except that of the members first nominated 
     for appointment to the Board under paragraph (3)(C)--
       (A) two shall be nominated for a 4-year term (including the 
     member who shall be the Presiding Officer of the Board);
       (B) two shall be nominated for a 3-year term; and
       (C) two shall be nominated for a 2-year term.
       (6) Vacancies.--An individual appointed to fill a vacancy 
     shall be appointed for the unexpired term of the member 
     replaced.
       (7) Procedural matters.--
       (A) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall 
     constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold 
     hearings.
       (B) Rules and procedures.--
       (i) Requirement.--The Board shall establish, and may from 
     time to time modify, such rules and procedures as the Board 
     considers appropriate to carry out its duties. Such rules and 
     procedures shall provide that a decision of the Board 
     requires a vote of a majority of the members of the Board.
       (ii) Publication.--The Board shall publish its rules and 
     procedures in the Federal Register.
       (iii) Initial rules and procedures.--The Board shall 
     establish its initial rules and procedures not later than 90 
     days after the date of initial meeting of the Board.
       (c) Powers and Duties.--The Board shall--
       (1) decide on appeals by agencies which challenge a 
     declassification order of the Office of National 
     Classification and Declassification Oversight under section 
     3(d)(4);
       (2) decide on appeals by agencies which challenge a 
     determination of that Office not to concur in the 
     postponement of the declassification of information under 
     section 3(d)(5); and
       (3) decide on appeals by persons or entities who have filed 
     requests for mandatory declassification review.
       (d) Protection of Information.--The Board shall take 
     appropriate actions to prevent the disclosure to the public 
     of classified information that is provided to the Board. Such 
     actions shall include a requirement that the members and 
     staff of the Board possess security clearances appropriate 
     for the information considered and reviewed by the Board.
       (e) Personnel Matters.--
       (1) Compensation.--
       (A) Compensation.--Each member of the Board who is a 
     private citizen shall be compensated at a rate equal to the 
     daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed 
     for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of 
     title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel 
     time) during which such member is engaged in the performance 
     of the duties of the Board.
       (B) Travel expenses.--The members of the Board shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Board.
       (2) Staff.--The Presiding Officer of the Board may, with 
     the concurrence of the Board, appoint such staff, including 
     an executive secretary, as the Board requires to carry out 
     its duties.
       (3) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Board without reimbursement, 
     and such detail shall be without interruption or loss of 
     civil service status or privilege.

     SEC. 5. APPEAL OF DETERMINATIONS OF CLASSIFICATION AND 
                   DECLASSIFICATION REVIEW BOARD.

       (a) Appeal.--Subject to subsection (c), any agency may 
     appeal to the President a decision or other action of the 
     Classification and Declassification Review Board under 
     section 4(c).
       (b) Deadline.--An agency may appeal a decision or other 
     action under subsection (a) only if the agency submits the 
     appeal to the President not later than 60 days after the date 
     of the decision or other action concerned.
       (c) Finality.--A decision of the President on an appeal 
     under subsection (a) shall be final.

     SEC. 6. PROHIBITIONS.

       (a) Withholding Information from Congress.--Nothing in this 
     Act shall be construed to authorize the withholding of 
     information from Congress.
       (b) Judicial Review.--Except in the case of the amendment 
     to section 552 of title 5, United States Code, made by 
     section 2(g), no person may seek or obtain judicial review of 
     any provision of this Act or any action taken under a 
     provision of this Act.

     SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) The term ``agency'' means any executive agency as 
     defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, any 
     military department as defined in section 102 of such title, 
     and any other entity in the Executive Branch of the 
     Government that comes into the possession of classified 
     information.
       (2) The terms ``classify'', ``classified'', and 
     ``classification'' refer to the process by which information 
     is determined to require protection from unauthorized 
     disclosure pursuant to this Act in order to protect the 
     national security of the United States.
       (3) The terms ``declassify'', ``declassified'', and 
     ``declassification'' refer to the process by which 
     information that has been classified is determined to no 
     longer require protection from unauthorized disclosure 
     pursuant to this Act.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendment made by section 2(g) shall take 
     effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Moynihan today 
in introducing a bill that would for the first time place in statute 
the government system for the classification of information. To date 
this has been accomplished solely through executive order.
  The statute is based on the recommendations contained in the report 
of the Commission to Protect and Reduce Government Secrecy chaired by

[[Page 733]]

my colleague Pat Moynihan, the senior senator from New York. The 
Secrecy Commission achieved a unified report of recommendations--a feat 
that should not be underrated, especially in Washington. The bill also 
makes changes based on recommendations by the Government Affairs 
Committee during its consideration of our legislation during the 105th 
Congress.
  The bill recognizes that over-classification can actually weaken the 
protections of those secrets that truly are in our national interest. 
All the same I am obliged to begin with a reiteration of the obvious--
that the protection of true national security information remains vital 
to the well-being and security of the United States. The end of the 
Cold War notwithstanding, the United States continues to face serious 
and long-term threats from a variety of fronts. While communist and 
anti-American regimes, such as North Korea, Cuba, Iran and Iraq, 
continue to wage a war against the United States, new threats have 
arisen as well. Indeed, there is even a growing trend of espionage 
conducted not by our enemies but by American allies. Such espionage is 
on the rise especially against U.S. economic secrets.
  At first blush, a push to reduce government secrecy may seem at odds 
with these increasing threats. I am convinced it is not. The sheer 
volume of government ``secrets''--and their costs to the taxpayers and 
U.S. business--is staggering. In 1996 the taxpayers spent more than 
$5.2 billion to protect classified information. We know all too well 
from our own experiences that when everything is secret nothing is 
secret.
  Secrecy all too often then becomes a political tool used by Executive 
Branch agencies to shield information which may be politically 
sensitive or policies which may be unpopular with the American people. 
Worse yet, information may be classified to hide from public view 
illegal or unethical activity. On numerous occasions, I, and other 
Members of Congress, have found the Executive Branch to be reluctant to 
share certain information, the nature of which is not truly a 
``national secret,'' but which would potentially be politically 
embarrassing to officials in the Executive Branch or which would make 
known an illegal or indefensible policy.
  I have also found that one of the largest impediments to openness is 
the perverse incentives of the government bureaucracy itself in favor 
of classification, and the lack of accountability for those who do the 
actual classification. I strongly endorse the Commission's 
recommendation of adding individual accountability to the process by 
requiring a detailed justification of the decision to classify.
  On the other hand, declassification decisions can be politicized. 
Limited resources for declassification are used to declassify 
information for political purposes. Only recently, in the case of 
documents relating to U.S. activities in Central and South America the 
Administration has made decisions to declassify documents at the 
request of certain interest groups. As a result the resources for 
routine declassification are being redirected to serve political ends. 
This bill would serve to eliminate politicized declassification 
decisions by requiring routine declassification and oversight by an 
independent board.
  I would add a note of caution regarding declassification, however. In 
the course of the two years of its work, the Commission became very 
interested in the declassification of existing documents and materials. 
In a perfect world, if information remains relevant to true U.S. 
national interests it should remain classified indefinitely. 
Information that does not compromise U.S. interests and sources should 
be made public. We all realize, however, that this is a tremendously 
costly venture. In fact, the Commission was unable to come up with 
solid data on the true cost of declassification.
  In this era when Congress has finally begun to grasp the essential 
need to reduce government spending and balance the budget, the issue of 
balancing costs and benefits is an essential one. The financial costs 
to the American taxpayers must be balanced against the necessity of the 
declassification. The real lesson to take from the work of this 
Commission is the need to redress for the future the problems of over 
classification and a systematic process for declassification, so that 
the costs and timeliness of declassification does not pose the same 
economic and regulatory burdens on future generations. At the same 
time, it may be too costly to declassify all of the countless 
classified documents now in existence.
  I hope the 106th Congress will complete the work of the 105th 
Congress and bring government wide rationalization to the 
classification process. It is an area where tough Congressional 
oversight is long overdue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 23. A bill to promote a new urban agenda, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.


                    the new urban agenda act of 1999

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce 
legislation that will deal with the plight of our nation's cities and 
Washington's increasing neglect of them. With 80% of the U.S. 
population living in metropolitan areas, there is an urgent need to 
improve our urban economies and the quality of life for the millions of 
Americans who live and work in cities. By simply making our cities an 
appealing place to live, work, recreate, and visit, urban areas can 
rebound to the vibrant economic centers they once were.
  There is a common perception that urban areas are abandoned and 
stripped of their resources, burdened with poverty and crime. However, 
cities have a wealth of resources available to not only the urban 
dweller but to the world--cultural centers, business hubs, and some of 
the finest educational and medical institutions. The real problem is 
that we do not draw upon these riches or strive to better coordinate 
them to serve people, most especially those in need.
  My proposal, the ``New Urban Agenda Act of 1999'' is based on 
legislation which I have endeavored to make law since the 103rd 
Congress. I am pleased to be introducing it today, in this first 
Congress of the new millennium, with my distinguished colleague from 
Illinois, Senator Durbin, who also recognizes the potential of both 
small cities and large metropolitan areas.
  The bill constitutes an effort to give our cities some much-needed 
attention, but reflects the federal budgetary constraints which govern 
all that we in Congress do these days. This bill, based in significant 
part on suggestions by Philadelphia Mayor Edward G. Rendell and the 
League of Cities, offers aid to the cities while containing federal 
expenditures and by re-instituting important cost-effective tax breaks 
which have been discontinued.
  If we are to really address many of the very serious social issues 
that we face--unemployment, teenage pregnancy, welfare dependency, and 
other pressing issues--we cannot give up on our cities. There must be 
new strategies for dealing with the problems of urban America. The days 
of creating ``Great Society'' federal aid programs are clearly past, 
but that is no excuse for the national government to turn a blind eye 
to the problems of the cities.
  Urban areas remain integral to America's greatness as centers of 
commerce, industry, education, health care, and culture. Yet urban 
areas, particularly the inner cities which tend to have a 
disproportionate share of our nation's poor, also have special needs 
which must be recognized. We must develop ways of aiding our cities 
that do not require either new taxes or more government bureaucracy.
  As a Philadelphia resident, I have first-hand knowledge of the 
growing problems that plague our cities. The most recent U.S. Census 
data collected showed that Philadelphia has over 300,000 individuals in 
poverty and when federal welfare reform took effect in October 1996, 
113,000 adults were receiving some form of cash assistance. Reflecting 
on my experience as a Philadelphian, I have long supported a variety of 
programs to assist our cities, such as increased funding for Community 
Development Block Grants and legislation to establish enterprise and

[[Page 734]]

empowerment zones. To encourage similar efforts, in April, 1994, I 
hosted my Senate Republican colleagues on a visit to explore urban 
problems in my hometown. We talked with people who wanted to obtain 
work, but had found few opportunities. We saw a crumbling 
infrastructure and its impact on residents and businesses. We were 
reminded of the devastating effect that the loss of inner city 
businesses and jobs has had on our neighborhoods in America's cities. 
What my Republican colleagues saw then in Philadelphia is the urban 
rule across our country and not the exception.
  There are many who do not know of city life, who are far removed from 
the cities and would not be expected to have any key interest in what 
goes on in the big cities of America. I cite my own boyhood experience 
illustratively: Born in Wichita, Kansas, raised in Russell, a small 
town of 5,000 people on the plains of Kansas, where there is not much 
detailed knowledge of what goes on in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, or 
other big cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Miami, 
Pittsburgh, Dallas, Detroit or Chicago.
  Those big cities are alien to people in much of America. But there is 
a growing understanding that the problems of big cities contribute 
significantly to the general problems affecting our nation and have an 
economic impact, at the very least, on our small towns. For rural 
America to prosper, we need to make sure that urban America prospers 
and vice-versa. For example, if cities had more economic growth, taxes 
could be reduced on all Americans at the federal and state level 
because revenues would increase and social welfare spending would be 
reduced.
  There is indeed a domino effect from our cities to rural communities 
of the country. Lately, we have been witnessing this in the violent 
behavior of adolescents. School violence and juvenile crime are no 
longer endemic to urban living. Take the Bloods and the Crips gangs 
from Los Angeles, California, and similar gangs; that are all over 
America. They are in Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Des Moines, Iowa; 
Portland, Oregon; Jackson, Mississippi; Racine, Wisconsin; and 
Martinsburg, West Virginia. They are literally everywhere, big city and 
small city alike.
  In the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's 1998 report 
on the ``State of the Cities,'' findings show that large urban schools 
still deal with a higher concentration of violence, and the data only 
represents crimes which were serious enough to report to the police. 
The School District of Philadelphia's most recent report on school 
violence shows that in the 1994-1995 academic year, students, teachers 
and administrators were the victims of 2,147 reported criminal 
incidents, up by almost 100% from the previous year. These included 
assault, robbery, rape, and students being stabbed or even shot. The 
school district also reported troubling news about abysmal attendance 
rates. On any given day, more than one in every four students are 
absent.
  Understandably so, city residents are afraid to continue leading an 
urban lifestyle. Each day, small business owners question whether they 
should remain in the city because they fear for the safety of their 
children, their employees, and ultimately, their businesses. I have 
personally met and spoken with shop owners in the University City 
section of Philadelphia who tell me that they look desperately for 
reasons to stay, but it gets harder and harder.
  Joblessness and a less skilled work force are additional problems. To 
facilitate economic development and job creation in the United States, 
I supported the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, which contained such 
provisions as the Job Training Partnership Act and the Targeted Job Tax 
Credit. As Congress put the final touches on that legislation, I 
circulated a joint letter from several Senators to then-Majority Leader 
Dole and Speaker Gingrich recommending spurring job creation and 
economic growth in our cities through several urban initiatives such 
as: a targeted capital gains exclusion, commercial revitalization tax 
credit, historic rehabilitation tax credit, and child care credit. Last 
year, I introduced the ``Job Preparation and Retention Training Act of 
1998,'' which was included in the recently enacted Workforce 
Development Act of 1998. My legislation authorized funding for States 
to enroll long-term welfare dependents into a training program which 
would provide the necessary skills to locate and maintain gainful and 
unsubsidized employment.
  The last census taken in 1990, reported that New York City led the 
way, with 1.3 million individuals in poverty. My home of Philadelphia 
had 313,374 individuals in poverty at that time. And in HUD's 1998 
``State of the Cities'' report, by 1996, one in every five urban 
families lived in poverty, compared with fewer than one in ten suburban 
families. These facts emphasize the need for more efforts to be focused 
on strengthening our inner city businesses which, in turn, will boost 
local economies and serve to provide more jobs, reduce poverty and, 
hopefully, reduce crime.
  I have long supported efforts to encourage the growth of small 
business. During the 105th Congress, I once again introduced 
legislation to provide targeted tax incentives for investing in small 
minority- or women-owned businesses. Small businesses provide the bulk 
of the jobs in this country. Many minority entrepreneurs, for instance, 
have told me that they are dedicated to staying in the cities to employ 
people there, but continue to confront capital access issues. My 
legislation, the ``Minority and Women Capital Formation Act'' would 
help to remove the capital access barriers, thereby enabling these 
entrepreneurs to grow their businesses and payrolls.
  Municipal leaders are stressing many of the same concerns that 
business people are voicing. In a July, 1994 National League of Cities 
report dealing with poverty and economic development, municipal leaders 
ranked inadequate skills and education of workers as one of the top 
three reasons, in addition to shortage of jobs and below-poverty wages, 
for poverty and joblessness in their cities. They said, according to 
the survey, that more jobs must be created through local economic 
development initiatives.
  This ``skills deficit'' is highlighted in an urban revitalization 
plan prepared in 1991 by the National Urban League called ``Playing to 
Win: A Marshall Plan for America's Cities.'' The report cites a 
statistic by the Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills which showed 
that 60 percent of all 21-25 year-olds lack the basic reading and 
writing skills needed for the modern workplace, and only 10 percent of 
those in that age group have enough mathematical competence for today's 
jobs. The economic problems our cities are facing are not easy to deal 
with or answer. In a report by the National League of Cities entitled 
``City Fiscal Conditions in 1996,'' municipal officials from 381 cities 
answered questions on the economic state of their cities. In response 
to state budgetary problems, 21.7 percent of responding cities reduced 
municipal employment and 18.5 percent had frozen municipal employment. 
Nearly six out of ten cities raised or imposed new taxes or user fees 
during the past twelve months.
  These numbers are of concern to me and I believe they highlight the 
need for federal legislation to enhance the ability of cities to 
achieve competitive economic status. An added concern is that city 
managers are forced to balance cuts in services or enact higher taxes. 
Neither choice is easy and it often counteracts municipal efforts to 
retain residents or businesses.
  One issue, in particular, that is hurting many cities is the erosion 
of their tax bases, evidenced particularly by middle-class flight to 
the suburbs. Mr. Ronald Walters, professor of Political Science at 
Howard University, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in 
April 1993, stated that in 1950, 23 percent of the American population 
lived outside central cities; by 1988, that number was up to 46 
percent. The District of Columbia's population loss is among the worst 
in the nation, with a quarter of its population relocating since the 
1970s. This trend of shrinking urban populations gives no sign of 
ceasing. Middle-class families continue

[[Page 735]]

to leave for the suburbs where there are typically better public 
services.
  These losses are devastating, not only to the financial stability of 
the city, but to the social fabric as well. On the financial side, 
statistics show that those people fleeing cities were earning an 
average of $30,000 to $75,000 a year. On the social side, roughly half 
of these are African-American Middle-class families. By losing this 
critical demographic group, the city loses much of what makes it 
strong. As America's cities struggle with the exodus of residents, 
businesses and industry, city residents who remain are faced with 
problems ranging from increased tax burdens and lesser services to 
dwindling economic opportunities, leading to welfare dependence and 
unemployment assistance. In the face of all this, what do we do?
  The federal government has attempted to revitalize our ailing urban 
infrastructure by providing federal funding for transit and sewer 
systems, roads and bridges. I have supported this. For example, as a 
member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee and as co-
chair of an informal Senate Transit Coalition, I have been a strong 
supporter of public transit which provides critically needed 
transportation services in urban areas. Transit helps cities meet clean 
air standards, reduce traffic congestion, and allows disadvantaged 
persons access to jobs. Federal assistance for urban areas, however, 
has become increasingly scarce as we grapple with the nation's deficit 
and debt. Therefore, we must find alternatives to reinvigorate our 
nation's cities so they can once again be economically productive areas 
providing promising opportunities for residents and neighboring areas. 
To address the need for reliable transportation systems in our nation's 
cities and to provide access to jobs for city residents, I introduced 
reverse commute and jobs access legislation, which was successfully 
included in last year's highway and transit reauthorization bill. The 
bill authorizes $400 million over the next five years in access-to-jobs 
transit grants targeted at low-income individuals. Up to $10 million 
per year can be used for reverse commute projects to move individuals 
from cities to suburban job centers.
  In addition to support for infrastructure, I believe there are ways 
Congress can assist the cities. In 1994, Mayor Rendell came up with a 
legislative package which contains many good ideas. I have taken many 
of these suggestions and have since added and revised provisions to 
take into account new developments at the federal, state and local 
levels to create the ``New Urban Agenda Act of 1999.''
  First, recognizing that the federal government is the nation's 
largest purchaser of goods and services, this legislation would require 
that no less than 15 percent of federal government purchases are made 
from businesses and industries within designated urban Empowerment 
Zones and Enterprise Communities. Similarly, my bill would require that 
not less than 15 percent of foreign aid funds be redeemed through 
purchases of products manufactured in urban Empowerment Zones and 
Enterprise Communities. The General Services Administration will be 
required to submit to Congress its assessment of the extent to which 
federal agencies are committed to this policy and in general, economic 
revitalization in distressed urban areas.
  The second major provision of this bill would commit the federal 
government to play an active role in restoring the economic health of 
our cities by encouraging the location, or relocation, of federal 
facilities in urban areas. To accomplish this, all federal agencies 
would be required to prepare and submit to the President an Urban 
Impact Statement detailing the impact that relocation or downsizing 
decisions would have on the affected city. Presidential approval would 
be required to place a federal facility outside an urban area, or to 
downsize a city-based agency.
  The third critical component of this bill would revive and expand 
federal tax incentives that were eliminated or restricted in the Tax 
Reform Act of 1986. Until there is passage of legislation on the flat 
tax, which would provide benefits superior to all targeted tax breaks, 
I believe America's cities should have the advantages of such tax 
benefits. These provisions offer meaningful incentives to business to 
invest in our cities. I am calling for the restoration of the Historic 
Rehabilitation Tax Credit which supports inner city revitalization 
projects. According to information provided by Mayor Rendell, there 
were 8,640 construction jobs involved in 356 projects in Philadelphia 
from 1978 to 1985 stimulated by the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit. 
In Chicago, 302 projects prior to 1985 generated $524 million in 
investment and created 20,695 jobs. In St. Louis, 849 projects 
generated $653 million in investment and created 27,735 jobs.
  Nationally, according to National Park Service estimates for the 16 
years before the 1986 Act, the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit 
stimulated $16 billion in private investment for the rehabilitation of 
24,656 buildings and the creation of 125,306 homes which included 
23,377 low and moderate income housing units. The 1986 Tax Act 
dramatically reduced the pool of private investment capital available 
for rehabilitation projects. In Philadelphia, projects dropped from 356 
to 11 by 1988 from 1985 levels. During the same period, investments 
dropped 46 percent in Illinois and 92 percent in St. Louis.
  Another tool is to expand the authorization of commercial industrial 
development bonds. Under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, authorization for 
commercial industrial bonds was permitted to expire. Consequently, 
private investment in cities declined. For instance, according to Mayor 
Rendell, from 1986--the last year commercial development bonds were 
permitted--to 1987, the total number of city--supported projects in 
Philadelphia was reduced by more than half.
  Industrial development or private activity bonds encourage private 
investment by allowing, under certain circumstances, tax-exempt status 
for projects where more than 10 percent of the bond proceeds are used 
for private business purposes. The availability of tax-exempt 
commercial industrial development bonds will encourage private 
investment in cities, particularly the construction of sports, 
convention and trade show facilities; free standing parking facilities 
owned and operated by the private sector; air and water pollution 
facilities owned and operated by the private sector; and, industrial 
parks.
  The bill I am introducing would allow this. It would also increase 
the small issue exemption, which means a way to help finance private 
activity in the building of manufacturing facilities from $10 million 
to $50 million to allow increased private investment in our cities.
  A minor change in the federal tax code related to arbitrage rebates 
on municipal bond interest earnings could also free additional capital 
for infrastructure and economic development by cities. Currently, 
municipalities are required to rebate to the federal government any 
arbitrage--a financial term meaning interest earned in excess of 
interest paid on the debt--earned from the issuance of tax-free 
municipal bonds. I am informed that compliance, or the cost for 
consultants to perform the complicated rebate calculations, is actually 
costing municipalities more than the actual rebate owed to the 
government. This bill would allow cities to keep the arbitrage earned 
so that they can use it to fund city projects and for other necessary 
purposes.
  My legislation also provides important incentives for businesses to 
invest and locate in our nation's cities. Specifically, the bill 
includes a provision which I have advocated to provide a 50 percent 
exclusion for capital gains tax purposes for any gain resulting from 
targeted investments in small businesses located in urban empowerment 
zones, enterprise communities, or enterprise zones. I also want to note 
that the exclusion would extend to any venture funds that invest in 
those small businesses, which is critical because venture funds are 
often the lifeblood of a small business. This is one of the incentives 
I recommended to Senator Dole in December 1995 for inclusion in the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 which

[[Page 736]]

was later vetoed by President Clinton. A targeted capital gains 
exclusion will serve as a catalyst for job creation and economic growth 
in our cities by encouraging additional private investment in our urban 
areas.
  A fourth provision of this legislation provides needed reforms to 
regulations and the financial challenges to obtaining affordable 
housing. This legislation provides language to study streamlining 
federal housing program assistance to urban areas into a block grant 
form so that municipal agencies can better serve local residents. Safe, 
clean, and affordable housing is not widely available to most low 
income families. According to the National Housing Law Project, in 
1996, only one in four families was eligible to receive HUD assistance, 
with waits of up to five years. In HUD's most recent annual report, 
just as many families are still struggling with the lack of affordable 
housing as they were when a record 5.3 million low-income renters were 
paying more than 50 percent of their income for rent between 1993 and 
1995. This provision of the bill steers the Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development to take a hard look at these conditions and determine 
what works and what does not work in federally-subsidized housing and 
to consider alternatives that will provide suitable homes for America's 
families.
  I believe that we as a nation should work toward providing 
individuals and their families with more opportunities for 
homeownership which stabilizes a community and would especially restore 
our cities. Urban homeownership including middle-income homeownership 
lags behind the suburbs. According to the Harvard University Joint 
Center for Housing Studies, city residents of all income levels are 
less likely to own a home than suburban residents with similar incomes. 
I hear time and time again from families starting out that they move 
out to the suburbs for better schools, because central cities lack the 
property tax base to provide for quality schools. Homeownership is key 
to saving our cities, both socially and economically. A 1998 Fannie Mae 
national housing survey indicated that even though homeownership rates 
continue to increase in the late 1990s, six in every ten renters said 
that buying a home is a very important priority, if not their number-
one priority in life. Yet for so many families financial barriers make 
that dream unattainable. That is why my bill includes a tax credit to 
restore the American dream of homeownership. A tax credit could be used 
by income-eligible individuals and families to purchase homes in 
distressed areas. In the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act, Congress approved 
such a tax credit for homebuyers in the District of Columbia. While 
single family home sales can be attributed to a multitude of factors, 
such as historically low interest rates and a strong economy, let me 
just share with you some amazing statistics related to homeownership 
since enactment of the tax credit in the District of Columbia. The Home 
Purchase Assistance Program through the District of Columbia's Office 
of Housing and Community Development helped 410 families purchase 
homes. Further, a group called the ``Washington Partners for 
Homeownership,'' a collaboration of realtors, banks, community and 
faith-based organizations, set a goal last year to create 1,000 new 
homeowners in the District of Columbia for each of the next three 
years. Remarkably, the Washington Partners have already reached that 
goal before the end of the first year. I believe that this country will 
reap extraordinary benefits if we expand such a credit on a national 
basis, as I propose in the ``New Urban Agenda Act of 1999.''
  I believe that the revitalization of cities will require social and 
economic facets, but it is also imperative that our cities are safe and 
clean. This last component of my bill helps urban areas to address 
their unique environmental challenges and reforms Superfund law. First, 
the legislation authorizes a federal brownfields program to help clean 
up idle or underused industrial and commercial facilities and waives 
federal liability for persons who fully comply with a state cleanup 
plan to clean sites in urban areas pursuant to state law, provided that 
the site is not listed or proposed to be listed on the National 
Priorities List. The Environmental Protection Agency currently operates 
this pilot program under general authority provided by the Superfund 
law.
  My legislation would make this a permanent program and substantially 
increase the funding levels to a $50 million authorized level for 
Fiscal Year 2000. The EPA could expend funds to identify and examine 
potential idle or underused Brownfield sites and to provide grants to 
States and local governments of up to $200,000 per site to put them 
back to productive use. One such grant has been used to great success 
by Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy, and I hope this provision will generate 
additional success stories of redeveloping urban brownfields.
  The Brownfields Program allows sites with minor levels of toxic waste 
to be cleaned up by State and local governments with federal and other 
funding sources. Companies and individuals who are interested in 
developing land into industrial, commercial, recreational, or 
residential use are often reluctant to purchase property with any level 
of toxic waste because of a fear of being saddled with cleanup 
liability under the Superfund law. Through expanded Brownfields grants, 
cleanup at such sites will be expedited and will encourage 
redevelopment of otherwise unusable urban property.
  My bill would also waive federal liability for persons who fully 
comply with a state cleanup plan to clean sites in urban areas pursuant 
to state law, providing that the site is not listed or proposed to be 
listed on the National Priorities List. Many states, including 
Pennsylvania, have developed their own toxic waste cleanup programs and 
have done good work to clean up many of these sites. Pennsylvania 
Governor Tom Ridge has developed an extensive plan, where contaminated 
sites are made safe based on sound science by returning the site to 
productive use through the development of uniform cleanup standards, by 
creating a set of standardized review procedures, by releasing owners 
and developers from liability who fully comply with the state cleanup 
standards and procedures, and by providing financial assistance. 
However, the efforts of states like Pennsylvania are often stifled 
because the federal government has not been willing to work with the 
States to release owners and developers from liability, even when they 
fully comply with the state plans.
  This section of my bill only applies to sites that are not on the 
National Priorities List. These are sites that the state has identified 
for which the state has created a comprehensive cleanup plan. If the 
federal government has concerns with the cleanup procedure or the 
safety of the site, then the government has full authority to place 
that site on the National Priority List. The plans, like that developed 
by Governor Ridge, deal with sites not controlled by the Superfund law. 
By not allowing the individual states to take the initiative to clean 
up these sites, and by not providing a waiver for federal liability to 
those who fully comply with the procedures and standards of the state 
cleanup, the federal government impedes the efforts of the states to 
work to clean up their own sites. This provision takes a significant 
step toward encouraging states to take the responsibility for their 
toxic waste sites and to encourage the effective cleanup of these sites 
in our nation's urban areas.
  The final environmental provision calls for the reauthorization of an 
existing federal program, which has served cities across the nation 
very well, but has not been authorized since 1995 and has also been 
unable to meet the demand for an ``urban greening effort.'' The Urban 
and Community Forestry Assistance Program through the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture provides financial and technical assistance to urban 
areas to help establish and maintain community parkland and forests in 
our nation's 45,000 towns and cities. The number of requests for 
federal assistance and grants exceeds the capacity of the existing 
Urban and Community Forestry program by eight times. The number of 
communities assisted through the Urban and Community Forestry 
Assistance Program has

[[Page 737]]

grown from 7,548 in Fiscal Year 1992 to 11,675 in Fiscal Year 1997, a 
56% increase in five years. An enhanced Urban and Community Forestry 
Program will enable cities to put vacant areas and abandoned structures 
back into use. There are more than 15,000 vacant lots in Pennsylvania, 
which as we know, pose serious health and safety risks, detract 
commercial investments, reduce property values, and cost municipalities 
hundreds of millions of dollars in maintenance and lost revenue. The 
Urban and Community Forestry Program has been very successful due to 
its flexible design and emphasis on local creativity. In fact, the 
program has allowed for benefits that go beyond revenue and other 
economic gains. Many of the formerly broken down concrete lots are now 
green and welcoming to the community have provided children and their 
parents with a safe haven for recreation outside the home. Some city 
public schools have even begun to use these areas as their ``science 
parks'' for after-school and weekend educational activities.
  Mr. President, I realize that this is an initial step to reinvesting 
in our cities. Nevertheless, it is time to take a comprehensive 
approach to reversing urban decay, which is what I believe my bill can 
accomplish. It may well be that America has given up on its cities. 
That is a stark statement, but it is one which I believe may be true--
that America has given up on its cities. But this Senator has not done 
so. And I believe there are others in this body on both sides of the 
aisle who have not done so and I invite the input and assistance of my 
colleagues in order to fashion a strong plan of action to help cities 
to face their pressing problems.
  As one of a handful of United States Senators who lives in a big 
city, I understand both the problems and the promise of urban America. 
This legislation for our cities is good public policy. The plight of 
our cities must be of extreme concern to America. We can ill-afford for 
them to wither and die. I am committed to a new urban agenda that 
relies on market forces, and not a welfare state, for urban 
revitalization.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 New Urban Agenda Act of 1999--Summary


              Title I--Promote Urban Economic Development

       Requires a portion of federal and foreign aid purchases 
     (not less than 15 percent) to be from businesses operating in 
     urban zones, and commits the government to purchase recycled 
     products from businesses operating in urban zones.
       Requires an urban impact statement, with Presidential 
     approval, that details the impact on cities of agency 
     downsizing or relocation. Under the bill, a ``distressed 
     urban area'' follows HUD's definition, namely any city having 
     a population of more than 100,000.


    Title II--Tax Incentives To Stimulate Urban Economic Development

       Expands the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit which was 
     reduced in 1986. It would restore the issuance of tax-free 
     industrial development bonds and would allow cities to keep 
     the arbitrage earned from the issuance of tax-free municipal 
     bonds. Currently, local governments are required to rebate to 
     the federal government arbitrage earned from the issuance of 
     tax-free municipal bonds, and often spend more on compliance 
     than on the actual rebate.
       To encourage businesses to invest and locate in our 
     nation's cities, provides a 50 percent exclusion for capital 
     gains tax purposes for any gain resulting from targeted 
     investments in small businesses located in urban empowerment 
     zones, enterprise communities, or enterprise zones. The 
     exclusion also extends to any venture that invest in those 
     small businesses.


             Title III--Community-Based Housing Development

       Lifts Federal restrictions on community-based housing 
     development.
       To boost the efficiency of regional housing authorities, a 
     study would be done to streamline current and future housing 
     programs into ``block grants.''
       Provides a tax credit to encourage the purchase and 
     ownership of homes in distressed urban areas.


          Title IV--Response to Urban Environmental Challenges

       Reforms Superfund law to encourage industrial cleanup. 
     Authorizes an expanded federal brownfields grant program to 
     help clean up idle or underused industrial and commercial 
     facilities. Also provides regulatory relief by waiving 
     federal liability for businesses and individuals that fully 
     comply with a state cleanup plan to clean sites in urban 
     areas pursuant to state law, provided that the site is not 
     listed or proposed to be listed on the National Priorities 
     List.
       Reauthorizes the Urban and Community Forestry Assistance 
     Program to provide cities with the financial and technical 
     assistance necessary to revitalize abandoned, heavily 
     littered and demolished lands.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 24. A bill to provide improved access to health care, enhance 
informed individual choice regarding health care services, lower health 
care costs through the use of appropriate providers, improve the 
quality of health care, improve access to long term care, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                 THE HEALTH CARE ASSURANCE ACT OF 1999

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as the 106th Congress commences, those of 
us in the Senate and the House have a new opportunity to make a real 
difference in the lives of the American people. It is a chance for us 
to learn from the past, determine how best to respond to the challenges 
that are before us, and forge important alliances which will enable us 
to pass legislation that is important to this nation. I believe it is 
clear that one of our first priorities must be additional incremental 
reforms of our health care system.
  Mr. President, there is no time to waste. Many of our nation's health 
care problems are getting worse, not better. In its December 1998 
report, the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) analyzed the 
March 1998 Current Population Survey, a document generated yearly by 
the U.S. Census Bureau. EBRI's analysis tells us that in 1997, about 
193 million working-age Americans derived their health insurance 
coverage as follows: approximately 64.2 percent from employer plans; 
13.0 percent from Medicare and Medicaid within a total of 14.8 percent 
from public sources of coverage; and 6.7 percent from other private 
insurance. This survey also details another troubling statistic: 43.1 
million Americans, or 18.3 percent of Americans aged 18-64, were 
uninsured. This reflects an increase of 7 percent, or 2.8 million 
uninsured working-age people, since 1995. Among the elderly, the 
outlook is a bit brighter, with only 1 percent uninsured, and 96.4 
percent deriving coverage from public sources.
  As I have said many times, we can fix the problems felt by this 
growing number of uninsured Americans without resorting to big 
government and without completely overhauling our current system, one 
that works well for most Americans--serving 81.7 percent of our non-
elderly citizens. We must enact reforms that improve upon our current 
market-based health care system, as it is clearly the best health care 
system in the world.
  Accordingly, today I am introducing the Health Care Assurance Act of 
1999, which, if enacted, will take us further down the path of the 
incremental reforms started by the Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act of 1996 (Kassebaum-Kennedy) and various health care 
provisions enacted during the 105th Congress. I would note that the 
final version of Kassebaum-Kennedy contained many elements which were 
in S. 18, the incremental health care reform bill I introduced when the 
104th Congress began on January 4, 1995.
  I would note that the bill I am introducing today is distinct from my 
recent efforts regarding managed care reform. During the 105th 
Congress, I joined a bipartisan group of Senators to introduce the 
Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1998, a balanced proposal 
which would ensure that patients receive the benefits and services to 
which they are entitled, without compromising the savings and 
coordination of care that can be achieved through managed care. I look 
forward to working again with my colleagues to enact responsible 
managed care legislation.
  The Health Care Assurance Act of 1999 is intended to initiate and 
stimulate new discussion, so we may move the health care reform debate 
forward. I welcome any suggestions my colleagues may have concerning 
how this

[[Page 738]]

bill can be improved, as long as such suggestions are consistent with 
the incremental approach to reform that has proven to be the only way 
to achieve successful health care reform.
  Given the importance of enacting this type of legislation, it is 
worth reviewing recent history which has taught us that bipartisanship 
is crucial in accomplishing these goals for the American people. In 
particular, the debate over President Clinton's Health Security Act 
during the 103rd Congress is replete with lessons concerning the 
pitfalls and obstacles that inevitably lead to legislative failure. 
Several times during the 103rd Congress, I spoke on the Senate floor to 
address what seemed to be the wisest course--to pass incremental health 
care reforms with which we could all agree. Unfortunately, what seemed 
obvious to me, based on comments and suggestions by a majority of 
Senators who favored a moderate approach, was not obvious at the time 
to the Senate's Democratic leadership.
  This failure to understand the merits of an incremental approach was 
demonstrated during April 1993 during my attempts to offer a health 
care reform amendment based on the text of S. 631, an incremental 
reform bill I had introduced earlier in the session. This bill 
incorporated moderate, consensus principles in a reasonable reform 
package. First, I attempted to offer the bill as an amendment to 
legislation dealing with debt ceilings. Subsequently, I was informed 
that the consideration of this bill would be structured in a way that 
precluded my offering an amendment. Therefore, I prepared to offer my 
health care bill as an amendment to the fiscal year 1993 Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations bill. To my dismay, Senator Mitchell, then 
Majority Leader, and Senator Byrd, then Chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, worked together to ensure that I could not offer my 
amendment by keeping the Senate in a quorum call, a parliamentary 
tactic used to delay and obstruct. I was unable to obtain unanimous 
consent to end the quorum call, and thus could not proceed with my 
amendment.
  Three years later, well after the behemoth Clinton health care reform 
bill was derailed, the Senate once again endured a lengthy political 
battle concerning the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, which I was pleased to 
cosponsor. We achieved a breakthrough in August 1996, when enough 
Senators sensed the growing frustration of the American people to 
finally pass Kassebaum-Kennedy and its vital health insurance market 
reforms, such as increased portability of health insurance coverage. 
There is no question that Kassebaum-Kennedy made significant steps 
forward in addressing troubling issues in health care, although I 
recognize that there is much more to be done. The bill's incremental 
approach to health care reform is what allowed it to generate 
bipartisan, consensus support in the Senate. We knew that it did not 
address every single problem in the health care delivery system, but it 
would make life better for millions of American men, women, and 
children.
  In retrospect, I urge my colleagues to note a most important fact--
the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill was enacted only after Democrats abandoned 
their hopes for passing a nationalized, big government health care 
scheme, and Republicans abandoned their position that access to health 
care is not really a major problem in the United States which demands 
Federal action.
  Perhaps the greatest recent example of the power of bipartisanship 
took place during the 105th Congress, with the passage of the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997. This historic bipartisan agreement between Congress 
and the White House to balance the budget by 2002 extended the life of 
the vital Medicare hospital trust fund by ten years, while expanding 
needed benefits for seniors. The new law created a National Bipartisan 
Commission on the Future of Medicare to address the implications of the 
retirement of the Baby Boom generation, and marked the first balanced 
Federal budget in thirty years. This landmark accomplishment clearly 
would not have occurred without all members of Congress and the 
Administration crossing party lines, compromising, and doing what was 
right for the American people regardless of political affiliations.
  We must realize that if we are to continue to be successful in 
meeting the nation's health care needs, the solutions to the system's 
problems must come from the political center, not from the extremes.
  I have advocated health care reform in one form or another throughout 
my 18 years in the Senate. My strong interest in health care dates back 
to my first term, when I sponsored S. 811, the Health Care for 
Displaced Workers Act of 1983, and S. 2051, the Health Care Cost 
Containment Act of 1983, which would have granted a limited antitrust 
exemption to health insurers, permitting them to engage in certain 
joint activities such as acquiring or processing information, and 
collecting and distributing insurance claims for health care services 
aimed at curtailing then escalating health care costs. In 1985, I 
introduced the Community Based Disease Prevention and Health Promotion 
Projects Act of 1985, S. 1873, directed at reducing the human tragedy 
of low birth weight babies and infant mortality. Since 1983, I have 
introduced and cosponsored numerous other bills concerning health care 
in our country. A complete list of the 26 health care bills that I have 
sponsored since 1983 is included for the Record.
  During the 102nd Congress, I pressed the Senate to take action on 
this issue. On July 29, 1992, I offered a health care amendment to 
legislation then pending on the Senate floor. This amendment included 
provisions from legislation introduced by Senator Chafee, which I 
cosponsored and which was previously proposed by Senators Bentsen and 
Durenberger. The amendment included a change from 25 percent to 100 
percent deductibility for health insurance purchased by self-employed 
persons, and small business insurance market reforms to make health 
coverage more affordable for small businesses. When then-Majority 
Leader George Mitchell argued that the health care amendment I was 
proposing did not belong on that bill, I offered to withdraw the 
amendment if he would set a date certain to take up health care, just 
as product liability legislation had been placed on the calendar for 
September 8, 1992. The Majority Leader rejected that suggestion and the 
Senate did not consider comprehensive health care legislation during 
the balance of the 102nd Congress. My July 29, 1992 amendment was 
defeated on a procedural motion by a vote of 35 to 60, along party 
lines.
  The substance of that amendment, however, was adopted later by the 
Senate on September 23, 1992 when it was included in an amendment to 
broader tax legislation (H.R. 11), offered by Senators Bentsen and 
Durenberger and which I cosponsored. This amendment, which included 
essentially the same self-employed tax deductibility and small group 
reforms that I had proposed on July 29th of that year, passed the 
Senate by voice vote. Unfortunately, these provisions were later 
dropped from H.R. 11 in the House-Senate conference.
  On August 12, 1992, I introduced legislation entitled the Health Care 
Affordability and Quality Improvement Act of 1992, S. 3176, that would 
have enhanced informed individual choice regarding health care services 
by providing certain information to health care recipients, would have 
lowered the cost of health care through use of the most appropriate 
provider, and would have improved the quality of health care.
  On January 21, 1993, the first day of the 103rd Congress, I 
introduced the Comprehensive Health Care Act of 1993, S. 18. This 
legislation was comprised of reforms that our health care system could 
have adopted immediately. These initiatives would have both improved 
access and affordability of insurance coverage and would have 
implemented systemic changes to lower the escalating cost of care in 
this country. S. 18 is the principal basis of the legislation I 
introduced in the 104th (S. 18) and 105th Congresses (S. 24), and the 
Health Care Assurance Act of 1999, which I am introducing today.
  On March 23, 1993, I introduced the Comprehensive Access and 
Affordability Health Care Act of 1993, S. 631,

[[Page 739]]

which was a composite of health care legislation introduced by Senators 
Cohen, Kassebaum, Bond, and McCain, and included pieces of my bill, S. 
18. I introduced this legislation in an attempt to move ahead on the 
consideration of health care legislation and provide a starting point 
for debate. As I noted earlier, I was precluded by Majority Leader 
Mitchell from obtaining Senate consideration of my legislation as a 
floor amendment on several occasions. Finally, on April 28, 1993, I 
offered the text of S. 631 as an amendment to the pending Department of 
Environment Act (S. 171) in an attempt to urge the Senate to act on 
health care reform. My amendment was defeated 65 to 33 on a procedural 
motion, but the Senate had finally been forced to contemplate action on 
health care reform.
  On the first day of the 104th Congress, January 4, 1995, I introduced 
a slightly modified version of S. 18, the Health Care Assurance Act of 
1995 (also S. 18), which contained provisions similar to those 
ultimately enacted in the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation, including 
insurance market reforms, an extension of the tax deductibility of 
health insurance for the self employed, and deductibility of long term 
care insurance for employers.
  I continued these efforts in the 105th Congress, with the 
introduction of Health Care Assurance Act of 1997 (S. 24), which 
included market reforms similar to my previous proposals with the 
addition of a new Title I, an innovative program to provide vouchers to 
States to cover children who lack health insurance coverage. I also 
introduced Title I of this legislation as a stand-alone bill, the 
Healthy Children's Pilot Program of 1997 (S. 435) on March 13, 1997. 
This proposal targeted the approximately 4.2 million children of the 
working poor who lacked health insurance. These are children whose 
parents earn too much to be eligible for Medicaid, but do not earn 
enough to afford private health care coverage for their families. This 
legislation would have established a $10 billion/5 year discretionary 
pilot program to cover these uninsured children by providing grants to 
States. Modeled after Pennsylvania's extraordinarily successful Caring 
and BlueCHIP programs, this legislation was the first Republican-
sponsored child health insurance bill during the 105th Congress.
  I was encouraged that the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, signed into 
law on August 5, 1997, included a combination of the best provisions 
from many of child health insurance proposals throughout this Congress. 
The new legislation allocated $24 billion for the next five years to 
establish State Child Health Insurance Programs, funded in part by a 
slight increase in the cigarette tax. The bill I am introducing today, 
the Health Care Assurance Act of 1999, would further augment this new 
State Child Health Insurance Program and would enable States to cover 
even more children, and includes new provisions to assist individuals 
with disabilities to maintain quality health care coverage.
  My commitment to the issue of health care reform across all 
populations has been consistently evident during my tenure in the 
Senate, as I have taken to this floor and offered health care reform 
bills and amendments on countless occasions. I will continue to urge 
the Senate to address this vital issue and to stress the importance of 
the Federal government's investment in and attention to the system's 
future.
  As my colleagues are aware, I can personally report on the miracles 
of modern medicine. Five years ago, an MRI detected a benign tumor 
(meningioma) at the outer edge of my brain. It was removed by 
conventional surgery, with five days of hospitalization and five more 
weeks of recuperation.
  When a small regrowth was detected by a follow-up MRI in June 1996, 
it was treated with high powered radiation from the ``Gamma Knife.'' I 
entered the hospital in the morning of October 11, 1996, and left the 
same afternoon, ready to resume my regular schedule. Like the MRI, the 
Gamma Knife is a recent invention, coming into widespread use in the 
past decade.
  In July 1998, I was pleased to return to the Senate after a 
relatively brief period of convalescence following heart bypass 
surgery. This experience again led me to marvel at our health care 
system and made me more determined than ever to support Federal funding 
for biomedical research and to support legislation which will 
incrementally make health care available to all Americans.
  My concern about health care has long pre-dated my own personal 
benefits from the MRI and other diagnostic and curative procedures. As 
I have previously discussed, my concern about health care began many 
years ago and been intensified by my service on the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, which 
I now have the honor to chair.
  My own experience as a patient has given me deeper insights into the 
American health care system beyond my perspective from the U.S. Senate. 
I have learned: (1) our health care system, the best in the world, is 
worth every cent we pay for it; (2) patients sometimes have to press 
their own cases beyond the doctors' standard advice; (3) greater 
flexibility must be provided on testing and treatment; (4) our system 
has the resources to treat the 43.1 million Americans currently 
uninsured, but we must find the way to pay for it; and (5) all 
Americans deserve the access to health care from which I and others 
with coverage have benefitted.
  I have long been convinced that our Federal budget of 
$1,700,000,000,000, could provide sufficient funding for America's 
needs if we establish our real priorities. The real question has been 
whether we have enough doctors, hospitals, medical personnel, etc. to 
take care of Americans in need of medical attention. I am convinced 
that we do. The part which has yet to be accomplished is to work out 
the financing for the delivery of such health care. As specified in the 
legislation which I have introduced, I am convinced that sufficient 
savings are possible within the current system to provide health care 
for all Americans within the current expenditures.
  I share the American people's frustration with government and their 
desire to have their problems addressed. Over the past six years, I 
believe we have learned a great deal about our health care system and 
what the American people are willing to accept from the Federal 
government. The message we heard loudest was that Americans did not 
want a massive overhaul of the health care system. Instead, our 
constituents want Congress to proceed more slowly and to target what 
isn't working in the health care system while leaving in place what is 
working.
  As I have said both publicly and privately, I am willing to cooperate 
with the Administration in solving the health care problems facing our 
country. However, in the past I have found many important areas where I 
differed with President Clinton's approach to solutions and I did so 
because I believed that the proposals would have been deleterious to my 
fellow Pennsylvanians, to the American people, and to our health care 
system. Most important, I did not support creating a large new 
government bureaucracy because I believe that savings should go to 
health care services and not bureaucracies.
  On this latter issue, I first became concerned about the potential 
growth in bureaucracy in September 1993 after reading the President's 
239-page preliminary health care reform proposal. I was surprised by 
the number of new boards, agencies, and commissions, so I asked my 
legislative assistant, Sharon Helfant, to make me a list of all of 
them. Instead, she decided to make a chart. The initial chart depicted 
77 new entities and 54 existing entities with new or additional 
responsibilities.
  When the President's 1,342-page Health Security Act was transmitted 
to Congress on October 27, 1993, my staff reviewed it and found an 
increase to 105 new agencies, boards, and commissions and 47 existing 
departments, programs and agencies with new or expanded jobs. This 
chart received national attention after being used by Senator Bob Dole 
in his response to the President's State of the Union address on 
January 24, 1994.

[[Page 740]]

  The response to the chart was tremendous, with more than 12,000 
people from across the country contacting my office for a copy; I still 
receive requests for the chart. Groups and associations, such as United 
We Stand America, the American Small Business Association, the National 
Federation of Republican Women, and the Christian Coalition, reprinted 
the chart in their publications--amounting to hundreds of thousands 
more in distribution. Bob Woodward of the Washington Post later stated 
that he thought the chart was the single biggest factor contributing to 
the demise of the Clinton health care plan. And, as recently as the 
November 1996 election, my chart was used by Senator Dole in his 
presidential campaign to illustrate the need for incremental health 
care reform as opposed to a big government solution.
  With the history of the health care reform debate in mind, I have 
drafted an incremental bill which would provide quality health care 
without adversely affecting the many positive aspects of our health 
care system, which works for 81.7 percent of working-age Americans. It 
is more prudent to implement targeted reforms and then act later to 
improve upon what we have done. I call this trial and modification. We 
must be careful not to damage the positive aspects of our health care 
system upon which more than 193 million Americans justifiably rely.
  The legislation I am introducing today has three objectives: (1) to 
provide affordable health insurance for the 43.1 million working-age 
Americans now not covered; (2) to reduce health care costs for all 
Americans; and (3) to improve coverage for underinsured individuals, 
families, and children. This legislation is comprised of initiatives 
that our health care system can readily adopt in order to meet these 
objectives, and it does not create an enormous new bureaucracy to meet 
them.
  This bill includes provisions to encourage the formation of small 
group purchasing arrangements, to expand access to health insurance for 
children, to improve health coverage for individuals with disabilities, 
to strengthen preventive health benefits under the Medicare program, to 
increase access to prenatal care and outreach for the prevention of low 
birth weight babies, to facilitate the implementation of patients' 
rights regarding medical care at the end of life, to improve health 
education, to place greater emphasis on and to expand access to primary 
and preventive health services, to utilize non-physician providers, to 
reform the COBRA law to extend the time period for employees who leave 
their jobs to maintain their health benefits until alternative coverage 
becomes available, to increase the availability and use of consumer 
information and outcomes research, and to establish a national fund for 
health research within the Department of Treasury.
  Taken together, I believe the reforms proposed in the Health Care 
Assurance Act of 1999 will both improve the quality of health care 
delivery and will bring down the escalating costs of health care in 
this country. These initiatives represent a blueprint which can be 
modified, improved and expanded. In total, I believe this bill can 
significantly reduce the number of uninsured Americans, improve the 
affordability of care, ensure the portability and security of coverage 
between jobs, and yield cost savings of billions of dollars to the 
Federal Government, which can be used to cover the remaining uninsured 
and underinsured Americans.


                                TITLE I

  As I mentioned previously, Title I of the bill builds on the State 
Child Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), the new program established in 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which allocated $24 billion/five years 
to increase health insurance coverage for children. The S-CHIP program 
gives States the option to use federally funded grants to provide 
vouchers to eligible families to purchase health insurance for their 
children, or to expand Medicaid coverage for those uninsured children, 
or a combination of both. This title would increase the income 
eligibility to families with incomes at or below 235 percent of the 
Federal poverty level ($38,658 annually for a family of four), and 
would strengthen the States' ability to conduct Medicaid outreach to 
eligible children. The S-CHIP program anticipates enrolling 2.3 million 
uninsured children by the end of 2000. This provision would allow 
eligibility for approximately another 876,000 uninsured children, 
representing a 38 percent increase over current law.


                                TITLE II

  Title II assists another of our Nation's most vulnerable populations, 
persons with disabilities. This title would expand health services for 
disabled individuals in two ways. Currently, disabled individuals, or 
recipients of Social Security Disability Income (SSDI), may receive 
health insurance coverage under the Medicare program for a short time 
after returning to work. One provision of my bill would extend to 24 
months the period during which the individual may continue to receive 
Medicare benefits after returning to work, and allow the individual to 
purchase Medicare coverage at a reduced rate, subject to yearly review.
  In an effort to improve the delivery of care and the comfort of those 
with long-term disabilities, the second provision would allow for 
reimbursement for community-based attendant care services, instead of 
institutionalization, for eligible individuals who require such 
services based on functional need, without regard to the individual's 
age or the nature of the disability. The most recent data available 
tell us that 5.9 million individuals receive care for disabilities 
under the Medicaid program. The number of disabled who are not 
currently enrolled in the program who would apply for this improved 
benefit is not easily counted, but would likely be substantial given 
the preference of home and community-based care over institutional 
care.


                               TITLE III

  The next title contains provisions to make it easier for small 
businesses to buy health insurance for their workers by establishing 
voluntary purchasing groups. It also obligates employers to offer, but 
not pay for, at least two health insurance plans that protect 
individual freedom of choice and that meet a standard minimum benefits 
package. It extends COBRA benefits and coverage options to provide 
portability and security of affordable coverage between jobs.
  Specifically, Title III extends the COBRA benefit option from 18 
months to 24 months. COBRA refers to a measure which was enacted in 
1985 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
(COBRA '85) to allow employees who leave their job, either through a 
lay-off or by choice, to continue receiving their health care benefits 
by paying the full cost of such coverage. By extending this option, 
such unemployed persons will have enhanced coverage options.
  In addition, options under COBRA are expanded to include plans with 
lower premiums and higher deductibles of either $1,000 or $3,000. This 
provision is incorporated from legislation introduced in the 103rd 
Congress by Senator Phil Gramm and will provide an extra cushion of 
coverage options for people in transition. According to Senator Gramm, 
with these options, the typical monthly premium paid for a family of 
four would drop by as much as 20 percent when switching to a $1,000 
deductible and as much as 52 percent when switching to a $3,000 
deductible.
  This year I have also included a provision which would extend to 36 
months the time period for COBRA coverage for a child who is no longer 
a dependent under a parent's health insurance policy. Again, EBRI 
statistics indicate that young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 are 
more likely than any other age to be uninsured; 30.1% were without 
coverage in 1997. This provision would allow those who are no longer 
dependents on their parents' plan to have a more secure safety net.
  With respect to the uninsured and underinsured, my bill would permit 
individuals and families to purchase guaranteed, comprehensive health 
coverage through purchasing groups. Health insurance plans offered 
through the purchasing groups would be required to meet basic, 
comprehensive standards with respect to benefits. Such benefits must 
include a variation of benefits permitted among actuarially equivalent 
plans to be developed

[[Page 741]]

by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The standard 
plan would consist of the following services when medically necessary 
or appropriate: (1) medical and surgical devices; (2) medical 
equipment; (3) preventive services; and (4) emergency transportation in 
frontier areas.
  My bill would also create individual health insurance purchasing 
groups for individuals wishing to purchase health insurance on their 
own. In today's market, such individuals often face a market where 
coverage options are not affordable. Purchasing groups will allow small 
businesses and individuals to buy coverage by pooling together within 
purchasing groups, and choose from among insurance plans that provide 
comprehensive benefits, with guaranteed enrollment and renewability, 
and equal pricing through community rating adjusted by age and family 
size. Community rating will assure that no one small business or 
individual will be singularly priced out of being able to buy 
comprehensive health coverage because of health status. With community 
rating, a small group of individuals and businesses can join together, 
spread the risk, and have the same purchasing power that larger 
companies have today.
  For example, Pennsylvania has the ninth lowest rate of uninsured in 
the nation, with 90 percent of all Pennsylvanians enrolled in some form 
of health coverage. Lewin and Associates found that one of the factors 
enabling Pennsylvania to achieve this low rate of uninsured persons is 
that Pennsylvania's Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans provide guaranteed 
enrollment and renewability, an open enrollment period, community 
rating, and coverage for persons with pre-existing conditions. My 
legislation seeks to enact reforms to provide for more of these types 
of practices. The purchasing groups, as developed and administered on a 
local level, will provide small businesses and all individuals with 
affordable health coverage options.
  Title III of my bill also includes an important provision to give the 
self employed 100 percent deductibility of their health insurance 
premiums. The Kassebaum-Kennedy bill extended the deductibility of 
health insurance for the self employed to 80 percent by 2006. The 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Omnibus Appropriations Act for 
Fiscal Year 1999 both contained new phase-in scales for health 
insurance deductibility for the self-employed. Currently, self-employed 
persons may deduct 60 percent of their health insurance costs through 
2002, to be fully deductible in 2003. My bill would speed up the phase-
in to allow self-employed individuals and their families to deduct 100 
percent of their health insurance costs beginning in 2001, thereby 
giving the currently 2.9 million self-employed Americans who are 
uninsured a better incentive to purchase coverage.
  The provisions contained in this portion of my bill are vital, as 
EBRI statistics tell us that 48 percent of all uninsured workers in 
1997 were either self-employed or were working in private-sector firms 
with fewer than 25 employees. The disparity is further demonstrated by 
this telling statistic: 35 percent of workers in private-sector firms 
with fewer than 10 employees were uninsured, compared with only 12.3 
percent of workers in private-sector firms with 1000 or more employees.
  It is anticipated that the increased costs to employers electing to 
cover their employees as provided under Title III in my bill would be 
offset by the administrative savings generated by development of the 
small employer purchasing groups. Such savings have been estimated at 
levels as high as $9 billion annually. In addition, by addressing some 
of the areas within the health care system that have exacerbated costs, 
significant savings can be achieved and then redirected toward direct 
health care services.


                                TITLE IV

   Although our existing health care system suffers from very serious 
structural problems, common sense steps can be taken to head off the 
remaining problems before they reach crisis proportions. Title IV of my 
bill includes initiatives which will enhance primary and preventive 
care services aimed at preventing disease and ill-health.
  Each year about 7 percent of babies born in the United States are 
born with a low birth weight, multiplying their risk of death and 
disability. Most of the deaths which do occur are preventable. Although 
the infant mortality rate in the United States fell to an all-time low 
in 1989, an increasing percentage of babies continue to be born of low 
birth weight. The Executive Director of the National Commission To 
Prevent Infant Mortality put it this way: ``More babies are being born 
at risk and all we are doing is saving them with expensive 
technology.''
  It is a human tragedy for a child to be born weighing 16 ounces with 
attendant problems which last a lifetime. I first saw one pound babies 
in 1984 when I was astounded to learn that Pittsburgh, PA had the 
highest infant mortality rate of African-American babies of any city in 
the United States. I wondered how that could be true of Pittsburgh, 
which has such enormous medical resources. It was an amazing thing for 
me to see a one pound baby, about as big as my hand. However, I am 
pleased to report that as a result of successful prevention 
initiatives, Pittsburgh's infant mortality has decreased 20% (currently 
14.9 deaths per 1000 births, according to the 1997 statistics).
  My legislation also focuses attention on women at-risk for delivering 
low birth weight babies. The Department of Health and Human Services 
has estimated that between $1.1 billion and $2.5 billion per year could 
be saved if the number of low birth weight children were reduced by 
82,000 births. We know that in most instances, prenatal care is 
effective in preventing low birth weight babies. Numerous studies have 
demonstrated that low birth weight that does not have a genetic link is 
most often associated with inadequate prenatal care or the lack of 
prenatal care. The short and long-term costs of saving and caring for 
infants of low birth weight is staggering. In the most recent available 
study on the costs of low birth weight babies, the Office of Technology 
Assessment in 1988 concluded that $8 billion was expended in 1987 for 
the care of 262,000 low birth weight infants in excess of that which 
would have been spent on an equivalent number of babies born of normal 
birth weight, averted by earlier or more frequent prenatal care. If 
adequate prenatal care had been provided, especially to women at-risk 
for delivering low birth weight babies, the U.S. health care system 
could have saved between $14,000 and $30,000 per child in the first 
year in addition to the projected savings over the lifetime of each 
child.
  To improve pregnancy outcomes for women at risk of delivering babies 
of low birth weight, my legislation would strengthen the Healthy Start 
program to reduce infant mortality and the incidence of low birth 
weight births, as well as to improve the health and well-being of 
mothers and their families, pregnant women and infants. Funds are 
awarded under this program with the goal of developing and coordinating 
effective health care and social support services for women and their 
babies.
  I initiated action that led to the creation of the Healthy Start 
program in 1991, working with the Bush Administration and Senator 
Harkin. As Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee with 
jurisdiction over the Department of Health and Human Services, I have 
worked with my colleagues to ensure the continued growth of this 
important program. In 1991, we allocated $25 million for the 
development of 15 demonstration projects. This number grew to 22 in 
1994, to 75 projects in 1998, and the Health Resources and Services 
Administration expects this number to continue to increase. For fiscal 
year 1999, we secured $105 million for this vital program.
  Title IV also provides increased support to local educational 
agencies to develop and strengthen comprehensive health education 
programs, and to Head Start resource centers to support health 
education training programs for teachers and other day care workers. 
Many studies indicate that poor health and social habits are carried 
into adulthood and often passed on to the next generation. To interrupt 
this tragic cycle, our nation must invest in proven preventive health 
education programs.

[[Page 742]]

  Title IV further expands the authorization of a variety of public 
health programs, such as breast and cervical cancer prevention, 
childhood immunizations, family planning, and community health centers. 
These existing programs are designed to improve the public health and 
prevent disease through primary and secondary prevention initiatives. 
It is essential that we invest more resources in these programs now if 
we are to make any substantial progress in reducing the costs of acute 
care in this country.
  As Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee with jurisdiction over 
the Department of Health and Human Services, I have greatly encouraged 
the development of prevention programs which are essential to keeping 
people healthy and lowering the cost of health care in this country. In 
my view, no aspect of health care policy is more important. 
Accordingly, my prevention efforts have been widespread. Specifically, 
I joined my colleagues in efforts to ensure that funding for the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) increased $1.6 billion 
or 160 percent since 1989; fiscal year 1999 funding for the CDC totals 
$2.6 billion. We have also worked to elevate funding for CDC's breast 
and cervical cancer early detection program to $159 million in fiscal 
year 1999, a 123 percent increase since 1993. In addition, I have 
supported providing funding to CDC to improve the detection and 
treatment of re-emerging infectious diseases.
  I have also supported programs at CDC which help children. CDC's 
childhood immunization program seeks to eliminate preventable diseases 
through immunization and to ensure that at least 90 percent of 2 year 
olds are vaccinated. The CDC also continues to educate parents and 
caregivers on the importance of immunization for children under two 
years. Along with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, I have 
helped to ensure that funding for this important program totaled $421.5 
million for fiscal year 1999. The CDC's lead poisoning prevention 
program annually identifies about 50,000 children with elevated blood 
levels and places those children under medical management. The program 
prevents the amount of lead in children's blood from reaching dangerous 
levels and is currently funded at about $38 million.
  In recent years, we have also strengthened funding for Community 
Health Centers, which provide immunizations, health advice, and health 
professions training. These Centers, administered by the Health 
Resources and Services Administration, provide a critical primary care 
safety net to rural and medically underserved communities, as well as 
uninsured individuals, migrant workers, the homeless, residents of 
public housing, and Medicaid recipients. In 1996, 940 Health Centers 
provided comprehensive health care to 10 million children and adults 
across the United States. For fiscal year 1999, these Centers received 
$925 million, a $100 million increase over fiscal year 1998.
  As Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence and Chairman of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Department 
of Health and Human Services, I have worked to transfer CIA imaging 
technology to the fight against breast cancer. Through the Office of 
Women's Health within the Department of Health and Human Services, I 
secured a $2 million contract in fiscal year 1996 for the University of 
Pennsylvania and a consortium to perform the first clinical trials 
testing the use of intelligence community technology for breast cancer 
detection. My Appropriations Subcommittee has continued to provide 
funds to continue the clinical trials.
  I have also been a strong supporter of funding for AIDS research, 
education, and prevention programs. Funding for Ryan White AIDS 
programs has increased from $757.4 million in 1996 to $1.41 billion for 
fiscal year 1999. Within the fiscal year 1999 funding, $46 million was 
included for pediatric AIDS programs and $461 million for the AIDS Drug 
Assistance Program (ADAP). AIDS research at the NIH totaled $742.4 
million in 1989, and has increased to $1.85 billion in fiscal year 
1999. AIDS funding across the Department of Health and Human Services 
has steadily increased to over $3.9 billion for fiscal year 1999.
  The health care community continues to recognize the importance of 
prevention in improving health status and reducing health care costs. 
In this bill, I have also included provisions which refine and 
strengthen preventive benefits within the Medicare program, including 
coverage of yearly pap smears, pelvic exams, and mammography screening 
for women, with no copayment or Part B deductible; and coverage of 
insulin pumps for certain Type I Diabetics.
  The proposed expansions in preventive health services included in 
Title IV of my bill are conservatively projected to save approximately 
$2.5 billion per year or $12.5 billion over five years. However, I 
believe the savings will be higher. It is clearly difficult to quantify 
today the savings that will surely be achieved tomorrow from future 
generations of children that are truly educated in a range of health-
related subjects including hygiene, nutrition, physical and emotional 
health, drug and alcohol abuse, and accident prevention and safety.


                                TITLE V

  Title V of my bill would establish a federal standard and create 
uniform national forms concerning a patient's right to decline medical 
treatment. Nothing in my bill mandates the use of uniform forms. 
Rather, the purpose of this provision is to make it easier for 
individuals to make their own choices and determination regarding their 
treatment during this vulnerable and highly personal time. Studies have 
also indicated that advance directives do not increase health care 
costs. Data indicate that end-of-life costs account for 10 percent of 
total health expenditures and 28 percent of total Medicare 
expenditures. Loose projections indicate that a 10 percent savings made 
in the final days of life would result in approximately $10 billion of 
savings in medical costs per year, and about $4.7 billion in savings 
for Medicare alone.
  However, economic considerations are not and should not be the 
primary reasons for using advance directives. They provide a means for 
patients to exercise their autonomy over end-of-life decisions. A study 
done at the Thomas Jefferson University Medical College in Philadelphia 
cited research which found that about 90 percent of the American 
population has expressed interest in discussing advance directives. 
However, even more recent studies indicate that living wills would be 
used by many more Americans if they were better understood. My bill 
would provide information on an individual's rights regarding living 
wills and advanced directives, and would make it easier for people to 
have their wishes known and honored. In my view, no one has the right 
to decide for anyone else what constitutes appropriate medical 
treatment to prolong a person's life. Encouraging the use of advance 
directives will ensure that patients are not needlessly and unlawfully 
treated against their will. No health care provider would be permitted 
to treat an adult contrary to the adult's wishes as outlined in an 
advance directive. However, in no way would the use of advance 
directives condone assisted suicide or any affirmative act to end human 
life.


                                TITLE VI

  The next title addresses the unique barriers to coverage which exist 
in both rural and urban medically underserved areas. Within my State of 
Pennsylvania, such barriers result from a lack of health care providers 
in rural areas, and other problems associated with the lack of coverage 
for indigent populations living in inner cities. Title VI of my bill 
improves access to health care services for these populations by: (1) 
expanding Public Health Service programs and training more primary care 
providers to serve in such areas; (2) increasing the utilization of 
non-physician providers, including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse 
specialists and physician assistants, through direct reimbursements 
under the Medicare and Medicaid programs; and (3) increasing support 
for education and outreach.

[[Page 743]]

  I believe these provisions will also yield substantial savings. A 
study of the Canadian health system utilizing nurse practitioners 
projected savings of 10 to 15 percent of all medical costs. While our 
system is dramatically different from that of Canada, it may not be 
unreasonable to project annual savings of five percent, or $55 billion, 
from an increased number of primary care providers in our system. 
Again, experience will raise or lower this projection. Assuming these 
savings, based on an average expenditure for health care of $3,821 per 
person in 1995, it seems reasonable that we could cover over 10 million 
uninsured persons with these savings.


                               TITLE VII

  Outcomes research, included in title VII of my bill, is another area 
where we can achieve considerable long term health care savings while 
also improving the quality of care. According to most outcomes 
management experts, it is estimated that about 25 to 30 percent of 
medical care is inappropriate or unnecessary. Dr. Marcia Angell, former 
editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, also stated 
that 20 to 30 percent of health care procedures are either 
inappropriate, ineffective or unnecessary. In 1997, health care 
expenditures totaled $1.1 trillion annually.
  A well-funded program for outcomes research is therefore essential, 
and is supported by Dr. C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General of the 
United States. Title VII of my bill would establish such a program by 
imposing a one-tenth of one cent surcharge on all health insurance 
premiums. Based on the Health Care Financing Administration's 1995 
health spending review, private health insurance premiums totaled 
$325.4 billion. As provided in my bill, a surcharge would generate 
$325.4 million for an outcomes research fund.
  Title VII also authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to award grants to States to establish or improve a health care data 
information system. Currently, 38 States have a mandate to establish 
such a system, and 22 States are in various stages of implementation. 
In my own State, the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council 
has received national recognition for the work it has done to help 
control health care costs through the promotion of competition in the 
collection, analysis and distribution of uniform cost and quality data 
for all hospitals and physicians in the Commonwealth. Consumers, 
businesses, labor, insurance companies, health maintenance 
organizations, and hospitals have utilized this important information. 
Specifically, hospitals have used this information to become more 
competitive in the marketplace; businesses and labor have used this 
data to lower their health care expenditures; health plans have used 
this information when contracting with providers; and consumers have 
used this information to compare costs and outcomes of health care 
providers and procedures.


                               TITLE VIII

   Nursing home care is another significant issue which must be 
addressed. The cost of this care is exorbitant, averaging in excess of 
$40,000 annually. Public expenditures on nursing home care, largely 
through the Medicaid program, were over $33 billion in 1995. Despite 
these large public expenditures, the elderly face significant uncovered 
liability for long term care. Title VIII of my bill therefore would 
provide a tax credit for premiums paid to purchase private long-term 
care insurance. It also proposes home and community-based care benefits 
as less costly alternatives to institutional care. Other tax incentives 
and reforms provided in my bill to make long term care insurance more 
affordable include: (1) allowing employees to select long-term care 
insurance as part of a cafeteria plan and allowing employers to deduct 
this expense; (2) excluding from income tax the life insurance savings 
used to pay for long term care; and (3) setting standards for long term 
care insurance that reduce the bias that currently favors institutional 
care over community and home-based alternatives.


                                TITLE IX

  The final title of my bill would create a national fund for health 
research within the Department of the Treasury, to supplement the 
monies appropriated for the National Institutes of Health. To 
capitalize this fund, health insurance companies would be required to 
contribute 1 percent of all health insurance premiums received. This 
creative proposal was first developed by my distinguished colleagues, 
Senators Mark Hatfield and Tom Harkin. Their idea is a sound one and 
ought to be adopted. To this end, Senator Harkin and I introduced the 
National Fund for Health Research Act of 1997 (S. 441) on March 13, 
1997. I look forward to continuing to work together with Senator Harkin 
to enact a biomedical research fund this Congress.
  While precision is again impossible, it is reasonable to project that 
my proposal could achieve a net annual savings of between $90 and $100 
billion. I arrive at this sum by totaling the projected savings of $90 
to $100 billion annually--$9 billion in small employer market reforms 
coupled with employer purchasing groups; $2.5 billion for preventive 
health services; $22 to $33 billion for reducing inappropriate care 
through outcomes research; $10 billion from advanced directives; $55 
billion from increasing primary care providers; and $2.9 billion by 
reducing administrative costs and netting this against the $2.8 billion 
for long term care. Although these estimates are not exact, I propose 
this bill as a starting point to address the remaining problems with 
our health care system. Experience will require modification of these 
projections, and I am prepared to work with my colleagues to develop 
implementing legislation and to press for further action in the 
important area of health care reform.
  The provisions which I have outlined today contain the framework for 
providing affordable health care for all Americans. I am opposed to 
rationing health care. I do not want rationing for myself, for my 
family, or for America. In my judgment, we should not scrap, but rather 
we should build on our current health delivery system. We do not need 
the overwhelming bureaucracy that President Clinton and other 
Democratic leaders proposed in 1993 to accomplish this. I believe we 
can provide care for the 43.1 million Americans who are now not covered 
and reduce health care costs for those who are covered within the 
currently growing $1.1 trillion in health care spending.
  This bill is a significant next step forward in obtaining the 
objective of reforming our health care system, although that reform 
will not be achieved immediately or easily. Mr. President, the time has 
come for concerted action in this arena.
  I urge the Congressional leadership, including the appropriate 
committee chairmen, to move this legislation and other health care 
bills forward promptly.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill and a list of the 
26 health care bills I have sponsored since 1983 be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        26 Health Care Bills Introduced by Senator Arlen Specter

       98th Congress 1/3/83 until 1/2/85:
       (1) S. 811: The Health Care for Displaced Workers Act of 
     1983 (3/15/83)
       (2) S. 2051: The Health Care Cost Containment Act of 1983 
     (11/4/83)
       99th Congress 1/3/85 until 1/2/87:
       (3) S. 379: The Health Care Cost Containment Act of 1985 
     (2/5/85)
       (4) S. 1873: The Community Based Disease Prevention and 
     Health Promotion Projects Act of 1985 (11/21/85)
       100th Congress 1/3/87 until 1/2/89:
       (5) S. 281: The Aid to Families and Employment Transition 
     Act (1/6/87)
       (6) S. 1871: The Pediatric Acquired Immunodeficiency 
     Syndrome (AIDS) Resource Centers Act (11/17/87)
       (7) S. 1872: The Minority Acquired Immunodeficiency 
     Syndrome (AIDS) Awareness and Prevention Projects Act (11/17/
     87):
       101st Congress 1/3/89 until 1/2/91
       (8) S. 896: The Pediatric AIDS Resource Centers Act (5/2/
     89)
       (9) S. 1607: Authorization of the Office of Minority Health 
     (9/12/89):
       102nd Congress 1/3/91 until 1/5/93:
       (10) S. 1122: The Long-Term Care Incentives Act of 1991 (5/
     22/91)
       (11) S. 1214: The Change in Designation of Lancaster 
     County, PA, for Purposes of Medicare Services (6/4/91)
       (12) S. 1864: The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia 
     Medical Research Facility Act (10/23/91)

[[Page 744]]

       (13) S. 1995: The Health Care Access and Affordabililty Act 
     of 1991 (11/20/91)
       (14) S. 2028: The Women Veteran's Health Equity Act of 1991 
     (11/22/91)
       (15) S. 2029: Self-Funding of Veteran's Administrative 
     Health Care Act (11/22/91)
       (16) S. 2188: Rural Veterans Health Care Facilities Act (2/
     5/92)
       (17) S. 3176: The Health Care Affordabililty and Quality 
     Improvement Act of 1992 (8/12/92)
       (18) S. 3353: The Deferred Acquisition Cost Act (10/6/92)
       103rd Congress 1/5/93 until 12/11/94:
       (19) S. 18: The Comprehensive Health Care Act of 1993 (1/
     21/93)
       (20) S. 631: The Comprehensive Access and Affordabililty 
     Health Care (3/23/93):
       104th Congress 1/4/95 until 10/3/96:
       (21) S. 18: The Health Care Assurance Act of 1995 (1/4/95)
       (22) S. 1716: The Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence 
     Education Act of 1996 (4/29/96)
       105th Congress 1/7/97 to 10/21/98:
       (23) S. 24: The Health Care Assurance Act of 1997 (1/21/97)
       (24) S. 435: The Healthy Children's Pilot Program Act of 
     1997 (3/13/97)
       (25) S. 934: The Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence 
     Education Act of 1997 (6/18/97)
       (26) S. 999: Authorizing the Department of Veteran's 
     Affairs to Specify the Frequency of Screening Mammograms (7/
     9/97)
                                  ____


               Health Care assurance Act of 1999--Summary

       TITLE I: Expanded State Child Health Insurance Program--
     This title will expand upon the State Child Health Insurance 
     Program (S-CHIP), the new program established in the Balanced 
     Budget Act of 1997 which allocates $24 billion/five years to 
     increase health insurance coverage for children. The S-CHIP 
     program gives States the option to use federally funded 
     grants to provide vouchers to eligible families to purchase 
     health insurance for their children, or to expand Medicaid 
     coverage for those uninsured children, or a combination of 
     both. These grants are distributed to participating States 
     based on the number of uninsured children residing there. 
     This title would increase the income eligibility to families 
     with incomes at or below 235 percent of the Federal poverty 
     level ($38,658 annually for a family of four), and would 
     strengthen the States' ability to conduct Medicaid outreach 
     to eligible children.
       TITLE II: Expanded Health Services for Disabled 
     Individuals:--Extension of Medicare Eligibility for Disabled 
     Individuals Who Return to Work: Currently, disabled 
     individuals, or recipients of Social Security Disability 
     Income (SSDI), may receive health insurance coverage under 
     the Medicare program for a short time after returning to 
     work. This provision would extend to 24 months the period 
     during which the individual may continue to receive Medicare 
     benefits after returning to work, and allow the individual to 
     ``buy-into'' Medicare at a reduced rate, subject to yearly 
     review.
       Expansion of Community-Based Attendant Care Services--
     Medicaid currently covers the costs associated with 
     institutional care for disabled individuals. In an effort to 
     improve the delivery of care and the comfort of those with 
     long-term disabilities, this section would allow for 
     reimbursement for community-based attendant care services, 
     instead of institutionalization, for eligible individuals who 
     require such services based on functional need, without 
     regard to the individual's age or the nature of the 
     disability.
       TITLE III: General Health Insurance Coverage Provisions--
     Tax Equity for the Self-Employed: Under current law, self-
     employed persons may deduct 60 percent of their health 
     insurance costs through 2002, and those costs would be fully 
     deductible in 2003. However, all other employees may already 
     deduct 100 percent of such costs. Title III corrects this 
     inequity for the self-employed, 2.9 million of whom are 
     currently uninsured, by speeding up the phase-in to allow 
     self-employed individuals and their families to deduct 100 
     percent of their health insurance costs beginning in 2001.
       Small Employer and Individual Purchasing Groups: 
     Establishes voluntary small employer and individual 
     purchasing groups designed to provide affordable, 
     comprehensive health coverage options for such employers, 
     their employees, and other uninsured and underinsured 
     individuals and families. Health plans offering coverage 
     through such groups will: (1) provide a standard, actuarially 
     equivalent health benefits package; (2) adjust community 
     rated premiums by age and family size in order to spread risk 
     and provide price equity to all; and (3) meet certain other 
     guidelines involving marketing practices.
       Standard Benefits Package: The standard package of benefits 
     would include a variation of benefits permitted among 
     actuarially equivalent plans developed through the National 
     Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). The standard 
     plan will consist of the following services when medically 
     necessary or appropriate: (1) medical and surgical services; 
     (2) medical equipment; (3) preventive services; and (4) 
     emergency transportation in frontier areas.
       COBRA Portability Reform: For those persons who are 
     uninsured between jobs and for insured persons who fear 
     losing coverage should they lose their jobs, Title III 
     reforms the existing COBRA law by: (1) extending to 24 months 
     the minimum time period in which COBRA may cover individuals 
     through their former employers' plan, and extending to 36 
     months the time period in which a child who is no longer a 
     dependent under a parent's health insurance policy may 
     receive COBRA coverage; (2) expanding coverage options to 
     include plans with a lower premium and a $1,000 deductible--
     saving a typical family of four 20 percent in monthly 
     premiums--and plans with a lower premium and a $3,000 
     deductible--saving a family of four 52 percent in monthly 
     premiums.
       TITLE IV: Primary and Preventive Care Services:
       New Medicare Preventive Care Services: The health care 
     community continues to recognize the importance of prevention 
     in improving health status and reducing health care costs. 
     This provision institutes new preventive benefits within the 
     Medicare program, and refines and strengthens existing ones. 
     Under this provision, Medicare would cover yearly pap smears, 
     pelvic exams, and mammography screening for women, with no 
     copayment or Part B deductible; and cover insulin pumps for 
     certain Type I Diabetics.
       Primary Health and Education Assistance Programs: The 
     Department of Health and Human Service administers many 
     programs designed to increase access to primary and 
     preventive care. This provision provides increased 
     authorization for several existing preventive health programs 
     such as breast and cervical cancer prevention, Healthy Start 
     project grants aimed at reducing infant mortality and low 
     weight births and to improve the health and well-being of 
     mothers and their families, pregnant women and infants, and 
     childhood immunizations. This section also authorizes a new 
     grant program for local education agencies and pre-school 
     programs to provide comprehensive health education, and 
     reauthorizes the Adolescent Family Life (AFL) program (Title 
     XX) for the first time since 1984. The AFL program provides 
     funding for initiatives focusing directly on abstinence 
     education.
       TITLE V: Patient's Right to Decline Medical Treatment: 
     Improves the effectiveness and portability of advance 
     directives by strengthening the federal law regarding patient 
     self-determination and establishing uniform federal forms 
     with regard to self-determination.
       TITLE VI: Primary and Preventive Care Providers: Encourages 
     use of non-physician providers such as nurse practitioners, 
     physician assistants, and clinical nurse specialists by 
     increasing direct reimbursement under Medicare and Medicaid 
     without regard to the setting where services are provided. 
     Title VI also seeks to encourage students early on in their 
     medical training to pursue a career in primary care and it 
     provides assistance to medical training programs to recruit 
     such students.
       TITLE VII: Cost Containment:
       Outcomes Research: Expands funding for outcomes research 
     necessary for the development of medical practice guidelines 
     and increasing consumers' access to information in order to 
     reduce the delivery of unnecessary and overpriced care.
       New Drug Clinical Trials Program: Authorizes a program at 
     the National Institutes of Health to expand support for 
     clinical trials on promising new drugs and disease treatments 
     with priority given to the most costly diseases impacting the 
     greatest number of people.
       Health Care Cost Containment and Quality Information 
     Project: Authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services to award grants to States to establish a health care 
     cost and quality information system or to improve an existing 
     system. Currently, 38 States have State mandates to establish 
     an information system, approximately 22 States of which have 
     information systems in various stages of operation. 
     Information such as hospital charge data and patient 
     procedure outcomes data, which the State agency or council 
     collects is used by businesses, labor, health maintenance 
     organizations, hospitals, researchers, consumers, States, 
     etc. Such data has enabled hospitals to become more 
     competitive, businesses to save health care dollars, and 
     consumers to make informed choices regarding their care.
       TITLE VIII: Tax Incentives for Purchase of Qualified Long-
     Term Care Insurance: Increases access to long-term care by: 
     (1) establishing a tax credit for amounts paid toward long-
     term care services of family members; (2) excluding life 
     insurance savings used to pay for long-term care from income 
     tax; (3) allowing employees to select long-term care 
     insurance as part of a cafeteria plan and allowing employers 
     to deduct this expense; (4) setting standards that require 
     long-term care to eliminate the current bias that favors 
     institutional care over community and home-based 
     alternatives.
       TITLE IX: National Fund for Health Research: Authorizes the 
     establishment of a National Fund for Health Research to 
     supplement biomedical research through the contributions of 
     1% of premiums collected by health insurers. Funds will be 
     distributed to the National Institutes of Health's member 
     institutes and centers in the same proportion as the amount 
     of appropriations they receive for the fiscal year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Breaux,

[[Page 745]]

        Mr. Sessions, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lott, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Gregg, 
        Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Cochran):
  S. 25. A bill to provide Coastal Impact Assistance to State and local 
governments, to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments 
of 1978, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, the Urban 
Park and Recreation Recovery Act, and the Federal Aid in Wildlife 
Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the Pittman-Robertson Act) to 
establish a fund to meet the outdoor conservation and recreation needs 
of the American people, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


               conservation and reinvestment act of 1999

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today with great enthusiasm and 
pride to introduce a very important piece of legislation. I worked with 
my colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as 
well as with other members for over a year before introducing this 
legislation during the 105th Congress. Now, on this first date of 
introductions in the 106th Congress, I am reintroducing that 
legislation with a broad array of cosponsors. We have worked hard to 
arrive at this long awaited and anticipated point to introduce a 
bipartisan piece of legislation that may well be the most significant 
environmental effort of the century. I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleagues, Senators Murkowski, Lott, Breaux, Sessions, Cleland, 
Johnson, Gregg, Cochran and Mikulski.
  The Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 will go farther than 
any legislation to date to make good on promises that were made to the 
people of this country decades ago. In addition, it will begin to right 
a wrong endured by oil and gas producing states for over 50 years, 
particularly for the states along the Gulf of Mexico, and my state of 
Louisiana.
  The Conservation and Reinvestment Act first provides a guaranteed 
source of funding equal to twenty-seven percent of all Outer 
Continental Shelf revenues for Coastal Impact Assistance to states to 
offset the impacts of offshore oil and gas activity, as well as to non-
producing states for environmental purposes. This funding goes directly 
to States and local governments for improvements in air and water 
quality, fish and wildlife habitat, wetlands, or other coastal 
resources, including shoreline protection and coastal restoration. 
These revenues to coastal states will help offset a range of costs 
unique to maintaining a coastal zone for specific enumerated uses. The 
formula is based on population, coastline and proximity to production.
  Second, the bill provides a permanent stream of revenue for the State 
and Federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well as 
for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. Under the bill, 
funding to the LWCF becomes automatic at sixteen percent of annual 
revenues. Receiving just under half this amount, the state side of LWCF 
will provide funds to state and local governments for land acquisition, 
urban conservation and recreation projects, all under the discretion of 
state and local authorities. Since its enactment in 1965, the LWCF 
state grant program has funded more than 37,000 park and recreation 
projects throughout the nation, including in Louisiana the Joe Brown 
Park Development in New Orleans, the Baton Rouge Animal Exhibit, the 
Veterans Memorial Park in Point Barre and the Northwestern State 
University Recreation Complex in Natchitoches. The Urban Parks program 
would enable cities and towns to focus on the needs of its populations 
within our more densely inhabited areas with fewer greenspaces, 
playgrounds and soccer fields for our youth. Stable funding, not 
subject to appropriations, will provide greater revenue certainty to 
state and local planning authorities.
  A stable baseline will be established for Federal land acquisition 
through the LWCF at a level higher than the historical average over the 
past decade. Federal LWCF will receive just under half of the amount in 
this title of the bill. And, nothing in this bill will preclude 
additional Federal LWCF funds to be sought through the annual 
appropriations process. Some very worthy national projects that have 
received funding in the past include the Atchafalaya National Wildlife 
Refuge in Louisiana, the Mississippi Sandhill Crane Wildlife Refuge, 
the Cape Cod National Seashore, Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota 
and the Sterling Forest in New Jersey. Federal LWCF dollars will be 
used for land acquisition in areas which have been and will be 
authorized by Congress. Property will be acquired on a willing seller 
basis. The bill will restore Congressional intent with respect to the 
LWCF, the goal of which is to share a significant portion of revenues 
from offshore development with the states to provide for protection and 
public use of the natural environment.
  Finally, the wildlife conservation and restoration provision include 
guaranteed funding of seven percent of annual OCS revenues for wildlife 
habitat protection, conservation education and de-listing of endangered 
species. Moreover, this funding may be used by states for habitat 
preservation and land acquisition of wintering habitat for important 
species, therefore preventing listings under the Endangered Species 
Act.
  There is an incredible groundswell of support for this legislation 
that is growing. Just a few days ago, in recognition of the efforts 
undertaken here in Congress in both the House and the Senate, our 
Nation's President unveiled the Lands Legacy Initiative, which mirrors 
a number of provisions in the bills introduced here in Congress. I want 
to acknowledge this praiseworthy effort by the President. Such a 
development goes even further to emphasize the importance of this 
bipartisan, bicameral inititative--it is the will of the people. During 
last November's elections, many states enacted bond initiatives 
totaling almost $700 million that overwhelmingly demonstrate the value 
that the public places on green space and recreational opportunities. 
It is our duty to support those efforts for the benefit of future 
generations by reinvesting in our renewable resources. It is the right 
thing to do.
  While I am proud of the accomplishments represented by the 
introduction of this bill, I feel compelled to mention other interests 
that are not included in the legislation, but for which I maintain a 
strong level of support and commitment. The National Historic 
Preservation fund is an important authorized use for Outer Continental 
Shelf revenues. In fact, I introduced legislation last Congress to 
reauthorize the fund for its continued viability and vitality. In 
addition, I would like to work with proponents of historic preservation 
over the course of the 106th Congress to see their needs addressed in 
the future. This would include similar consideration for Historic 
Battlefield Preservation.
  I see the Conservation and Reinvestment Act as a starting point for 
debate and consideration of additional issues. My cosponsors and I have 
made some changes to the legislation to reflect the concerns and 
desires of interested groups. As we move forward on this measure, in 
the hearing and committee consideration process, I also wish to work 
with other Members and groups. Indeed, this is a measure that should 
enjoy broad support, and I want to continue to work toward that end.
  All three portions of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 
will effectively free up State resources which in turn may then be used 
for other pressing local needs. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act 
is a perfect opportunity to reinvest in our nation's renewable 
resources for our children's future and our grandchildren's future. It 
is an idea whose time has come. I urge my colleagues to carefully 
consider this proposal.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 
appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 25

       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 ``Conservation and 
     Reinvestment Act of 1999''.

[[Page 746]]



                   TITLE I--COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE

     SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Coastal Conservation and 
     Impact Assistance Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 102. AMENDMENT TO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT.

       The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978 
     (92 Stat. 629), as amended, is amended to add at the end 
     thereof a new Title VII as follows:

     ``SEC. 701. FINDINGS.

       ``The Congress finds and declares that--
       ``(1) The Nation owns valuable mineral resources that are 
     located both onshore and in the Federal Outer Continental 
     Shelf, and the Federal Government develops these resources 
     for the benefit of the Nation, under certain restrictions 
     designed to prevent environmental damage and other adverse 
     impacts.
       ``(2) Nonetheless, the development of these mineral 
     resources for the Nation is accompanied by unavoidable 
     environmental impacts and public service impacts in the 
     States that host this development, whether the development 
     occurs onshore or on the Federal Outer Continental Shelf.
       ``(3) The Federal Government has a responsibility to the 
     States affected by development of Federal mineral resources 
     to mitigate adverse environmental and public service impacts 
     incurred due to that development.
       ``(4) The Federal Government discharges its responsibility 
     to States where onshore Federal mineral development occurs by 
     sharing 50 percent of the revenue derived from the Federal 
     mineral development in that State pursuant to section 35 of 
     the Mineral Leasing Act.
       ``(5) Federal mineral development is occurring as far as 
     200 miles offshore and occurs off the coasts of only 6 
     States, yet section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
     Act does not adequately compensate these States for onshore 
     impacts of the offshore Federal mineral development.
       ``(6) Federal Outer Continental Shelf mineral development 
     is an important and secure source of our Nation's supply of 
     oil and natural gas.
       ``(7) Further technological advancements in oil and natural 
     gas exploration and production need to be pursued and 
     encouraged.
       ``(8) These technological achievements have and will 
     continue to result in new Outer Continental Shelf production 
     having an unparalleled record of excellence on environmental 
     safety issues.
       ``(9) Additional technological advances with appropriate 
     incentives will further improve new resource recovery and 
     therefore increase revenues to the Treasury for the benefit 
     of all Americans who enjoy programs funded by Outer 
     Continental Shelf moneys.
       ``(10) The Outer Continental Shelf Advisory Committee of 
     the Department of the Interior, consisting of representatives 
     of coastal States, recommended in October 1997 that Federal 
     mineral revenue derived from the entire Outer Continental 
     Shelf be shared with all coastal States and territories to 
     mitigate onshore impacts from Federal offshore mineral 
     development and for other environmental mitigation; and
       ``(11) The Nation's Federal mineral resources are a 
     nonrenewable, capital asset of the Nation, with the 
     production and sale of this resource producing revenue for 
     the Nation, a portion of the revenue derived from the 
     production and sale of Federal mineral resources should be 
     reinvested in the Nation through environmental mitigation and 
     public service improvements;
       ``(12) Nothing in this Title shall be interpreted to repeal 
     or modify any existing moratorium on leasing Federal OCS 
     leases for drilling nor shall anything in this Title be 
     interpreted as an incentive to encourage the development of 
     Federal OCS resources where such resources currently are not 
     being developed.

     ``SEC. 702. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this Act:
       ``(1) The term `allocable share' means, for a coastal 
     State, that portion of revenue that is available to be 
     distributed to that coastal State under this title. For an 
     eligible political subdivision of a coastal State, such term 
     means that portion of revenue that is available to be 
     distributed to that political subdivision under this title.
       ``(2) The term `coastal population' means the population of 
     political subdivisions, as determined by the most recent 
     official data of the Census Bureau, contained in whole or in 
     part within the designated coastal boundary of a State as 
     defined in a State's coastal zone management program under 
     the Coast Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1455).
       ``(3) The term `coastline' has the same meaning that it has 
     in the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1301 et seq.).
       ``(4) The term `eligible political subdivision' means a 
     coastal political subdivision of a coastal State which 
     political subdivision has a seaward boundary that lies within 
     a distance of 200 miles from the geographic center of any 
     leased tract. The Secretary shall annually provide a list of 
     all eligible political subdivisions of each coastal State to 
     the Governor of such State.
       ``(5) The term `political subdivision' means the local 
     political jurisdiction immediately below the level of State 
     government, including counties, parishes, and boroughs. If 
     State law recognizes an entity of general government that 
     functions in lieu of, and is not within, a county, parish, or 
     borough, the Secretary may recognize an area under the 
     jurisdiction of such other entities of general government as 
     a political subdivision for purposes of this Act.
       ``(6) The term `coastal State' means any State of the 
     United States bordering on the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific 
     Ocean, the Arctic Ocean, the Bering Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, 
     or any of the Great Lakes, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, 
     the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands.
       ``(7) The term `distance' means minimum great circle 
     distance, measured in statute miles.
       ``(8) The term `fiscal year' means the Federal Government's 
     accounting period which begins on October 1st and ends on 
     September 30th, and is designated by the calendar year in 
     which it ends.
       ``(9) The term `Governor' means the highest elected 
     official of a coastal State.
       ``(10) The term `leased tract' means a tract, leased under 
     section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1337) for the purpose of drilling for, developing and 
     producing oil and natural gas resources, which is a unit 
     consisting of either a block, a portion of a block, a 
     combination of blocks and/or portions of blocks, as specified 
     in the lease, and as depicted on an Outer Continental Shelf 
     Official Protraction Diagram.
       ``(11) The term `revenues' means all moneys received by the 
     United States as bonus bids, rents, royalties (including 
     payments for royalty taken in kind and sold), net profit 
     share payments, and related late-payment interest from 
     natural gas and oil leases issued pursuant to the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act.
       ``(12) The term `Outer Continental Shelf' means all 
     submerged lands lying seaward and outside of the area of 
     `lands beneath navigable waters' as defined in section 2(a) 
     of the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a)), and of 
     which the subsoil and seabed appertain to the United States 
     and are subject to its jurisdiction and control.
       ``(13) The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior or the Secretary's designee.

     ``SEC. 703. IMPACT ASSISTANCE FORMULA AND PAYMENTS.

       ``(a) Establishment of Fund.--(1) There is established in 
     the Treasury of the United States a fund which shall be known 
     as the `Outer Continent Shelf Impact Assistance Fund' 
     (referred to in this Act as `the Fund'). The Secretary shall 
     deposit in the Fund 27 percent of the revenues from each 
     leased tract or portion of a leased tract lying seaward of 
     the zone defined and governed by section 8(g) of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1337(g)), or 
     lying within such zone but to which section 8(g) does not 
     apply, the geographic center of which lies within a distance 
     of 200 miles from any part of the coastline or any coastal 
     State.
       ``(2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest moneys in 
     the Fund that are excess to expenditures at the written 
     request of the Secretary, in public debt securities with 
     maturities suitable to the needs of the Fund, as determined 
     by the Secretary, and bearing interest at rates determined by 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration 
     current market yields on outstanding marketable obligations 
     of the United States of comparable maturity.
       ``(b) Payment of States.--Notwithstanding section 9 of the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1338), the 
     Secretary shall, without further appropriation, make payments 
     in each fiscal year to coastal States and to eligible 
     political subdivisions equal to the amount deposited in the 
     Fund for the prior fiscal year, together with the portion of 
     interest earned from investment of the funds which 
     corresponds to that amount (reduced by any refunds paid under 
     section 705(c)). Such payments shall be allocated among the 
     coastal States and eligible political subdivisions as 
     provided in this section.
       ``(c) Determination of States' Allocable Shares.--
       ``(1) Allocable share for each state.--For each coastal 
     State, the Secretary shall determine the State's allocable 
     share of the total amount of the revenues deposited in the 
     Fund for each fiscal year using the following weighted 
     formula:
       ``(A) 25 percent to the States's allocable share shall be 
     based on the ratio of such State's shoreline miles to the 
     shoreline miles of all coastal States.
       ``(B) 25 percent to the States's allocable share shall be 
     based on the ratio of such State's coastal population to the 
     coastal population of all coastal States.
       ``(C) 50 percent of the State's allocable share shall be 
     computed based upon Outer Continental Shelf production. If 
     any portion of a coastal State lies within a distance of 200 
     miles from the geographic center of any leased tract, such 
     State shall receive 50 percent of its allocable share based 
     on the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production 
     offshore of such State. Such part of its allocable share 
     shall be inversely proportional to the distance between the 
     nearest point on the coastline of such State and the 
     geographic center of each leased tract or portion of the 
     leased tract (to the nearest whole mile), as determined by 
     the Secretary.

[[Page 747]]

       ``(2) Minimum state share.--
       ``(A) In general.--The allocable share of revenues 
     determined by the Secretary under this subsection for each 
     coastal State with an approved coastal management program (as 
     defined by the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1451)) or which is making satisfactory progress toward 
     one shall not be less than 0.50 percent of the total amount 
     of the revenues deposited in the Fund for each fiscal year. 
     For any other coastal State the allocable share of such 
     revenues shall not be less than 0.25 percent of such 
     revenues.
       ``(B) Recomputation.--Where one or more coastal States' 
     allocable shares, as computed under paragraph (1), are 
     increased by any amount under this paragraph, the allocable 
     share for all other coastal States shall be recomputed and 
     reduced by the same amount so that not more than 100 percent 
     of the amount deposited in the fund is allocated to all 
     coastal States. The reduction shall be divided pro rata among 
     such other coastal States.
       ``(3) Adjustment for producing states.--
       ``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Nonproducing state.--The term `nonproducing State' 
     means a State other than a producing State.
       ``(ii) Producing state.--The term `producing State' means a 
     State off the coast of which any leased tract or tract in 
     State water produced oil, condensate, or natural gas during 
     fiscal year 1998 that, during that fiscal year, was 
     transported by pipeline to a processing facility in the 
     State.
       ``(iii) Tract in state water.--The term `tract in State 
     water' means a tract on land beneath navigable water 
     described in section 2(a)(2) of the Submerged Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1301(a)(2)).
       ``(B) Adjustment.--For any fiscal year, if the application 
     of paragraphs (1) and (2) would result in an allocable share 
     for any nonproducing State that is greater than the allocable 
     share for any producing State--
       ``(i) the amount of the allocable share for each such 
     producing State shall be increased to the amount of the 
     highest allocable share for any such nonproducing State; and
       ``(ii) the amount of the allocable shares for States and 
     other than States receiving increases under paragraph (2) 
     shall be reduced in the amount of the increase under clause 
     (i) in the proportion that the allocable share for each such 
     other State after application of paragraphs (1) and (2) bears 
     to the total amount allocated to all States under paragraphs 
     (1) and (2).
       ``(d) Payments to States and Political Subdivisions.--Each 
     coastal State's allocable share shall be divided between the 
     State and political subdivisions in that State as follows:
       ``(1) 40 percent of each State's allocable share, as 
     determined under subsection (c), shall be paid to the State;
       ``(2) 40 percent of each State's allocable share, as 
     determined under subsection (c), shall be paid to the 
     eligible political subdivisions in such State, with the funds 
     to be allocated among the eligible political subdivisions 
     using the following weighted formula:
       ``(A) 50 percent of an eligible political subdivision's 
     allocable share shall be based on the ratio of that eligible 
     political subdivision's acreage within the State's coastal 
     zone, as defined in an approved State coastal management 
     program (as defined by the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1451)), to the entire acreage within the coastal 
     zone in such State; Provided, however, That if the State in 
     which the eligible political subdivision is located does not 
     have an approved coastal management program, then the 
     allocable share shall be based on the ratio of that eligible 
     political subdivision's shoreline miles to the total 
     shoreline miles in that coastal State.
       ``(B) 25 percent of an eligible political subdivision's 
     allocable share shall be based on the ratio of such eligible 
     political subdivision's coastal population to the coastal 
     population of all eligible political subdivisions in that 
     State.
       ``(C) 25 percent of an eligible political subdivision's 
     allocable share shall be based on ratios that are inversely 
     proportional to the distance between the nearest point on the 
     seaward boundary of each such eligible political subdivision 
     and the geographic center of each leased tract or portion of 
     the leased tract (to the nearest whole mile), as determined 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(3) 20 percent of each State's allocable share, as 
     determined under subsection (c), shall be allocated to 
     political subdivisions in the coastal State that do not 
     qualify as eligible political subdivisions but which are 
     determined by the Governor or the Secretary to have impacts 
     from Outer Continental Shelf related activities and which 
     have an approved plan under this subsection.
       ``(4) Project submission.--Prior to the receipt of funds 
     pursuant to this subsection for any fiscal year, a political 
     subdivision must submit to the Governor of the State in which 
     it is located a plan setting forth the projects and 
     activities for which the political subdivision proposes to 
     expend such funds. Such plan shall state the amounts proposed 
     to be expended for each project or activity during the 
     upcoming fiscal year.
       ``(5) Project approval.--(A) Prior to the payment of funds 
     pursuant to this subsection to any political subdivision for 
     any fiscal year, the Governor must approve the plan submitted 
     by the political subdivision pursuant to this subsection and 
     notify the Secretary of such approval. State approval of any 
     such plan shall be consistent with all applicable State and 
     Federal law. In the event the Governor disapproves any such 
     plan, the funds that would otherwise be paid to the political 
     subdivision shall be placed in escrow by the Secretary 
     pending modification and approval of such plan, at which time 
     such funds together with interest thereon shall be paid to 
     the political subdivision.
       ``(B) A political subdivision that fails to receive 
     approval from the Governor for a plan may appeal to the 
     Secretary and the Secretary may approve or disapprove such 
     plan based on the criteria set forth in section 704; 
     Provided, however, That the Secretary shall have no authority 
     to consider an appeal of a political subdivision if the 
     Governor of the State has certified in writing to the 
     Secretary that the State has adopted a State program that by 
     its express terms addresses the allocation of revenues to 
     political subdivisions.
       ``(e) Time of Payment.--(1) Payments to coastal States and 
     political subdivisions under this section shall be made not 
     later than December 31 of each year from revenues received 
     and interest earned thereon during the immediately preceding 
     fiscal year. Payment shall not commence before the date 12 
     months following the date of enactment of this Act.
       ``(2) Any amount in the Fund not paid to coastal States and 
     political subdivisions under this section in any fiscal year 
     shall be disposed of according to the law otherwise 
     applicable to revenues from leases on the Outer Continental 
     Shelf.

     ``SEC. 704. USES OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) Authorized Uses of Funds.--Funds received pursuant to 
     this Act may be used by the coastal States and political 
     subdivisions for
       ``(1) air quality, water quality, fish and wildlife, 
     wetlands, outdoor recreation programs, or other coastal 
     resources, including shoreline protection and coastal 
     restoration;
       ``(2) other activities of such State or political 
     subdivision, contemplated by the Coastal Zone Management Act 
     of 1972 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1451 et seq.), the provisions of 
     subtitle B of title IV of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (104 
     Stat. 523), or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq.);
       ``(3) planning assistance and administrative costs of 
     complying with the provisions of this subtitle;
       ``(4) uses related to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
     Act;
       ``(5) mitigating impacts of Outer Continental Shelf 
     activities, including onshore infrastructure and public 
     service needs; and
       ``(6) deposit in a state or political subdivision 
     administered trust fund dedicated to uses consistent with 
     this section.
       ``(b) Compliance With Applicable Laws.--All projects and 
     activities paid for by the moneys received from the Fund 
     shall comply with the state Coastal Zone Management Plan and 
     all applicable Federal, state and local environmental laws 
     and regulations.''

     ``SEC. 705. STATE PLANS: CERTIFICATION; ANNUAL REPORT; 
                   REFUNDS.

       ``(a) State Plans.--Within one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Governor of every state eligible 
     to receive moneys from the Fund shall develop a state plan 
     for the use of such moneys and shall certify the plan to the 
     Secretary. The plan shall be developed with public 
     participation and shall include the plan for the use of such 
     funds by every political subdivision of the state eligible to 
     receive moneys from the Fund. The Governor shall certify to 
     the Secretary that the plan was developed with public 
     participation and in accordance with all applicable state 
     laws. The Governor shall amend the plan, as necessary, with 
     public participation, but not less then every five years.
       ``(b) Certification.--Not later than 60 days after the end 
     of the fiscal year, any political subdivision receiving 
     moneys from the Fund must certify to the Governor--
       ``(1) the amount of such funds expended by the political 
     subdivision during the previous fiscal year;
       ``(2) the amounts expended on each project or activity;
       ``(3) a general description of how the funds were expended; 
     and
       ``(4) the status of each project or activity, including a 
     certification that the project or activity is consistent with 
     the state plan development under paragraph (a).
       ``(c) Report.--On June 15 of each year, the Governor of 
     each State receiving moneys from the Fund shall account for 
     all moneys so received for the previous fiscal year in a 
     written report to the Secretary and the Congress. This report 
     shall include a description of all projects and activities 
     receiving funds under this Act, including all information 
     required under subsection (a).
       ``(d) Refunds.--In those instances where through judicial 
     decision, administrative review, arbitration, or other means 
     there are royalty refunds owed to entities generating 
     revenues under this Act, 27 percent of such refunds shall be 
     paid from amounts available in the Fund.''

           TITLE II--LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND PROGRAM

     SECTION. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Reform Act of 1998''.

[[Page 748]]



     SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       ``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       ``(1) The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 
     embodied a visionary concept--that a portion of the proceeds 
     from Outer Continental Shelf mineral leading revenues and the 
     depletion of a nonrenewable natural resource should result in 
     a legacy of public places accessible for public recreation 
     and benefit from resources belonging to all people, of all 
     generations, and the enhancement of the most precious and 
     most renewable natural resource of any nation, healthy and 
     active citizens.
       (2) The States and local governments were to occupy a 
     pivotal role in accomplishing the purposes of the Land Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 and the Act originally provided 
     an equitable portion of funds to the States, and through 
     them, to local governments.
       (3) However, because of competition for limited Federal 
     moneys and the need for an annual appropriation, this 
     original intention has been abandoned and, in recent years, 
     the States have not received an equitable proportion of 
     funds.
       (4) Nonetheless, with population growth and urban sprawl, 
     the demand for recreation and conservation areas, at the 
     State and local level, including urban localities, remains a 
     high priority for our citizens.
       (5) In addition to the demand at the State and local level, 
     there has been an increasing unmet need for Federal moneys to 
     be made available for Federal purposes, with lands identified 
     as important for Federal acquisition not being acquired for 
     several years due to insufficient funds.
       (6) A new vision is called for--a vision that encompasses a 
     multilevel; national network of parks, recreation and 
     conservation areas that reaches across the country to touch 
     all communities. National parks are not enough; the federal 
     government alone cannot accomplish this. A national vision, 
     backed by realistic national funding support, to stimulate 
     State, local and private sector, as well as Federal efforts, 
     is the only way to effectively address our ongoing outdoor 
     recreation and conservation needs.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to provide a 
     secure source of funds available for Federal purposes 
     authorized by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 
     1965 and to revitalize and complement State, local and 
     private commitments envisioned in the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 and the Urban Park and 
     Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 by providing grants for 
     State, local and urban recreation and conservation needs.

     SEC. 203. LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Revenues.--Section 2(c)(1) of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-5(c)(1)) 
     is amended as follows:
       (1) By inserting ``(A)'' after ``(c)(1)''.
       (2) By striking ``there are authorized'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``from 16 percent of the revenues, as 
     that term is defined in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act 
     of 1999, shall be deposited in the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund in the Treasury and shall be available, 
     without further appropriation, to carry out this Act for each 
     fiscal year thereafter through September 30, 2015.''
       (3) By adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) In those instances where through judicial decision, 
     administrative review, arbitration, or other means there are 
     royalty refunds owed to entities generating revenues 
     available for purposes of this Act, 16 percent of such 
     refunds shall be paid from amounts available under this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Authorization.--Section 2(c)(2) of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-5(c)(2)) 
     is amended by striking ``equivalent amounts provided in 
     clause (1)'' and inserting ``$900,000,000''.
       (c) Appropriation.--Section 3 of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-6) is 
     amended by striking ``Moneys'' and inserting ``Except as 
     provided under section 460l-5(c)(1), moneys''.
       (d) Allocation of Funds.--Section 5 of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-7) is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' at the beginning:
       (2) by striking ``Those appropriations from the fund'' and 
     all that follows; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Moneys credited to the fund under section 2(c)(1) of 
     this Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-5(c)(1)) for obligation or 
     expenditure may be obligated or expended only as follows--
       ``(1) 45 percent shall be available for Federal purposes. 
     Notwithstanding section 7 of this Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-
     9), 25 percent of such moneys shall be made available to the 
     Secretary of Agriculture for the acquisition of lands, 
     waters, or interests in land or water within the exterior 
     boundaries of areas of the National Forest System or any 
     other land management unit established by an Act of Congress 
     and managed by the Secretary of Agriculture and 75 percent of 
     such moneys shall be available to the Secretary of the 
     Interior for the acquisition of lands, waters, or interests 
     in land or water within the exterior boundaries of areas of 
     the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, or 
     other land management unit established by an Act of Congress; 
     Provided, that at least two-thirds of the moneys available 
     under this paragraph for Federal purposes shall be spent east 
     of the 100th meridian; Provided further, no moneys available 
     under this paragraph for Federal purposes shall be used for 
     condemnation of any interest of property.
       ``(2) 45 percent shall be available for financial 
     assistance to the States under section 6 of this Act (16 
     U.S.C. Sec. 460l-8) distributed according to the following 
     allocation formula;
       ``(A) 60 percent shall be apportioned equally among the 
     several States;
       ``(B) 20 percent shall be apportioned on the basis of the 
     ratio which the population of each State bears to the total 
     population of the United States;
       ``(C) 20 percent shall be apportioned on the basis of the 
     urban population in each State (as defined by Metropolitan 
     Statistical Areas).
       ``(3) 10 percent shall be available to local governments 
     through the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program (16 
     U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2501-2514) of the Department of the 
     Interior.''.

     ``An amount, not to exceed 2 percent, of the total of such 
     moneys covered to the fund under section 2(c)(1) of this Act 
     (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-5(c)(1)) in each fiscal year as the 
     Secretary of the Interior may estimate to be necessary for 
     expenses in the administration and execution of this 
     subsection shall be deducted for that purpose, and such 
     amount is authorized to be made available therefor until the 
     expiration of the next succeeding fiscal year. Within 60 days 
     after the close of such fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     apportion any portion thereof as remains unexpended, if any, 
     on the same basis and in the same manner as is provided under 
     paragraphs (1), (2) and (3).
       (e) Rehabilitation.--Subsection 6(a) of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-8(a)) is 
     amended by deleting ``(3) development.'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``(3) development, including the facility 
     rehabilitation.''
       (f) Tribes and Alaska Native Village Corporations.--
     Subsection 6(b)(5) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
     Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-8(b)(5)) is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) By inserting ``(A)'' after ``(5)''.
       (2) By adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) For the purposes of paragraph (1), all federally 
     recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native Village 
     Corporations (as defined in section 3(j) of the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602(j)) shall be treated 
     collectively as 1 State, and shall receive shares of the 
     apportionment under paragraph (1) in accordance with a 
     competitive grant program established by the Secretary by 
     rule. Such rule shall ensure that in each fiscal year no 
     single tribe or Village Corporation receives more than 10 
     percent of the total amount made available to all tribes and 
     Village Corporations pursuant to the apportionment under 
     paragraph (1). Funds received by an Indian tribe or Village 
     Corporation under this subparagraph may be expended only for 
     the purposes specified in paragraphs (1) and (3) of 
     subsection (b).''
       ``(g) Local Allocation.--Subsection 6(b) of the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-
     8(b)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) Absent some compelling and annually documented reason 
     to the contrary acceptable to the Secretary, each State 
     (other than an area treated as a State under paragraph (5)) 
     shall make available as grants to local governments at least 
     50 percent of the annual State apportionment, or an 
     equivalent amount made available from other sources.''
       ``(h) Match.--Subsection 6(c) of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-8(c)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Matching Requirements.--Payments to any State shall 
     cover not more than 50 percent of the cost of outdoor 
     recreation and conservation planning, acquisition or 
     development projects that are undertaken by the State.''
       ``(i) State Action Agenda.--Subsection 6(d) of the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-
     8(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) State Action Agenda Required.--Each State may define 
     its own priorities and criteria for selection of outdoor 
     recreation and conservation acquisition and development 
     projects eligible for grants under this Act so long as it 
     provides for public involvement in this process and publishes 
     an accurate and current State Action Agenda for Community 
     Recreation and Conservation indicating the needs it has 
     identified and the priorities and criteria it has 
     established. In order to assess its needs and establish its 
     overall priorities, each State, in partnership with its local 
     governments and Federal agencies, and in consultation with 
     its citizens, shall develop a State Action Agenda for 
     Community Recreation and Conservation, within five years of 
     enactment, that meets the following requirements:
       ``(1) The agenda must be strategic, originating in broad-
     based and long-term needs, but focused on actions that can be 
     funded over the next 4 years.

[[Page 749]]

       ``(2) The agenda must be updated at least once every 4 
     years and certified by the Governor that the State Action 
     Agenda for Community Recreation and Conservation conclusions 
     and proposed actions have been considered in an active public 
     involvement process.

     ``State Action Agenda for Community Recreation and 
     Conservation shall take into account all providers of 
     recreation and conservation lands within each State, 
     including Federal, regional and local government resources 
     and shall be correlated whenever possible with other State, 
     regional, and local plans for parks, recreation, open space 
     and wetlands conservation.
       ``Each State Action Agenda for Community Recreation and 
     Conservation shall specifically address wetlands within that 
     State as important outdoor recreation and conservation 
     resources. Each State Action Agenda for Community Recreation 
     and Conservation shall incorporate a wetlands priority plan 
     developed in consultation with the State agency with 
     responsibility for fish and wildlife resources which is 
     consistent with that national wetlands priority conservation 
     plan developed under section 301 of the Emergency Wetlands 
     Resources Act.
       ``Recovery action programs developed by urban localities 
     under section 1007 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery 
     Act of 1978 shall be used by a State as one guide to the 
     conclusions, priorities and action schedules contained in the 
     State Action Agenda for Community Recreation and 
     Conservation. Each State shall assure that any requirements 
     for local outdoor recreation and conservation planning that 
     are promulgated as conditions for grants minimize redundancy 
     of local efforts by allowing, wherever possible, use of the 
     findings, priorities, and implementation schedules of 
     recovery action programs to meet such requirements.''
       ``(j) Comprehensive State Plans developed by any State 
     under section 6(d) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
     Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-8(d)) before the enactment 
     of this Act shall remain in effect in that State until or 
     State Action Agenda for Community Recreation and Conservation 
     has been adopted pursuant to the amendment made by this 
     subsection, but no later than 5 years after the enactment of 
     this Act.
       ``(k) State Plans.--Subsection 6(e) of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-8(e)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``State comprehensive plan'' at the end of 
     the first paragraph and inserting ``State Action Agenda for 
     Community Recreation and Conservation'';
       (2) by striking ``State comprehensive plan'' in paragraph 
     (1) and inserting ``State Action Agenda for Community 
     Recreation and Conservation''; and
       (3) by striking ``but not including incidental costs 
     related to acquisition'' at the end of paragraph (1).
       (l) Conversion.--Paragraph 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-8(f)(3)) 
     is amended by striking the second sentence and inserting: 
     ``With the exception of those properties that are no longer 
     viable as an outdoor recreation and conservation facility due 
     to changes in demographics or must be abandoned because of 
     environmental contamination which endanger public health and 
     safety, the Secretary shall approve such conversion only if 
     the State demonstrates no prudent or feasible alternative 
     exists. Any conversion must satisfy any conditions the 
     Secretary deemed necessary to assure the substitution of 
     other recreation and conservation properties of at least 
     equal fair market value, or reasonably equivalent usefulness 
     and location and which are in accord with the existing State 
     Action Agenda for Community Recreation and Conservation: 
     Provided, That wetland areas and interests therein as 
     identified in the wetlands provisions of the action agenda 
     and proposed to be acquired as suitable replacement property 
     within that same State that is otherwise acceptable to the 
     Secretary shall be considered to be of reasonably equivalent 
     usefulness with the property proposed for conversion.''
       (m) Cost Limitations.--Section 7 of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-9) is 
     amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
       ``(D) Maximum federal cost per project.--No expenditure 
     shall be made to acquire any Federal land the cost of which 
     exceeds $5,000,000 unless the funds for such acquisition have 
     been specifically allocated to the acquisition in the report 
     accompanying the legislation appropriating funds for the 
     Federal agency concerned and such allocation has been 
     approved by resolution adopted by the Committee on Resources 
     of the United States House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United 
     States Senate.''

     SEC. 204. URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY ACT OF 1978 
                   AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Grants.--Section 1004 of the Urban Park and Recreation 
     Recovery Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 2503) is amended by 
     redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as subsections 
     (f), (g), and (h) respectively, and by inserting the 
     following after subsection (c):
       ``(d) `development grants' means matching capital grants to 
     local units of government to cover costs of development and 
     construction on existing or new neighborhood recreation 
     sites, including indoor and outdoor recreation facilities, 
     support facilities, and landscaping, but excluding routine 
     maintenance and upkeep activities;'';
       ``(e) `acquisition grants' means matching capital grants to 
     local units of government to cover the direct and incidental 
     costs of purchasing new parkland to be permanently dedicated 
     and made accessible for public recreation use;''.
       (b) Eligibility.--Subsection 1005(a) of the Urban Park and 
     Recreation Recovery Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 2504) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(a) Eligibility of general purpose local governments to 
     compete for assistance under this title shall be based upon 
     need as determined by the Secretary. Generally, the list of 
     eligible government shall include the following:
       ``(1) All central cities of Metropolitan, Primary or 
     Consolidated Statistical Areas as currently defined by the 
     census.
       ``(2) All political subdivisions included in Metropolitan, 
     Primary or Consolidated Statistical Areas as currently 
     defined by the census.
       ``(3) Any other city or town within a Metropolitan Area 
     with a total population of 50,000 or more in the census of 
     1970, 1980 or 1990.
       ``(4) Any other county, parish or township with a total 
     population of 250,000 or more in the census of 1970, 1980 or 
     1990.''
       (c) Matching Grants.--Subsection 1006(a) of the Urban Park 
     and Recreation Recovery Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 2505(a)) is 
     amended by striking all through paragraph (3) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``Sec. 1006. (a) The Secretary is authorized to provide 70 
     percent matching grants for rehabilitation, innovation, 
     development or acquisition purposes to eligible general 
     purpose local governments upon his approval of applications 
     therefor by the chief executives of such governments.
       ``(1) At the discretion of such applicants, and if 
     consistent with an approved application, rehabilitation, 
     innovation, development or acquisition grants may be 
     transferred in whole or in part to independent special 
     purpose local governments, private nonprofit agencies or 
     county or regional park authorities; except that, such 
     grantees shall provide assurance to the Secretary that they 
     will maintain public recreation opportunities at assisted 
     areas and facilities owned or managed by them in accordance 
     with section 1010 of this Act.
       ``(2) Payments may be made only for those rehabilitation, 
     innovation, development, or acquisition projects which have 
     been approved by the Secretary. Such payments may be made 
     from time to time in keeping with the rate of progress toward 
     completion of a project, on a reimbursable basis.''.
       (d) Coordination.--Section 1008 of the Urban Park and 
     Recreation Recovery Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 2507) is amended by 
     striking the last sentence and inserting the following: ``The 
     Secretary and general purpose local governments are 
     encouraged to coordinate preparation of recovery action 
     programs required by this title with State Action Agendas for 
     Community Recreation and Conservation required by section 6 
     of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 
     including the allowance of flexibility in local preparation 
     of recovery action programs so that they may be used to meet 
     State or local qualifications for local receipt of Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund grants or State grants for similar 
     purposes or for other recreation or conservation purposes. 
     The Secretary shall also encourage States to consider the 
     findings, priorities, strategies and schedules included in 
     the recovery action programs of their urban localities in 
     preparation and updating of the State Action Agendas for 
     Community Recreation and Conservation, in accordance with the 
     public coordination and citizen consultation requirements of 
     subsection 6(d) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
     of 1965.''
       (e) Conversion.--Section 1010 of the Urban Park and 
     Recreation Recovery Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 2509) is amended by 
     striking the first sentence and inserting the following: ``No 
     property acquired or improved or developed under this title 
     shall, without the approval of the Secretary, be converted to 
     other than public recreation uses. The Secretary shall 
     approve such conversion only if the grantee demonstrates no 
     prudent or feasible alternative exists (with the exception of 
     those properties that are no longer a viable recreation 
     facility due to changes in demographics or must be abandoned 
     because of environmental contamination which endanger public 
     health and safety). Any conversion must satisfy any 
     conditions the Secretary deems necessary to assure the 
     substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal 
     fair market value, or reasonably equivalent usefulness and 
     location and which are in accord with the current recreation 
     recovery action program.''
       (f) Repeal.--Section 1014 of the Urban Park and Recreation 
     Recovery Act (16 U.S.C. 2513) is repealed.

            TITLE III--WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Wildlife Conservation and 
     Restoration Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 302. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds and declares that--
       (1) a diverse array of species of fish and wildlife is of 
     significant value to the Nation

[[Page 750]]

     for many reasons: aesthetic, ecological, educational, 
     cultural, recreational, economic, and scientific;
       (2) it should be the objective of the United States to 
     retain for present and future generations the opportunity to 
     observe, understand, and appreciate a wide variety of 
     wildlife;
       (3) millions of citizens participate in outdoor recreation 
     through hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation, all of 
     which have significant value to the citizens who engage in 
     these activities;
       (4) providing sufficient and properly maintained wildlife 
     associated recreational opportunities is important to 
     enhancing public appreciation of a diversity of wildlife and 
     the habitats upon which they depend;
       (5) lands and waters which contain species classified 
     neither as game nor identified as endangered or threatened 
     also can provide opportunities for wildlife associated 
     recreation and education such as hunting and fishing 
     permitted by applicable State or Federal law;
       (6) hunters and anglers have for more than 60 years 
     willingly paid user fees in the form of Federal excise taxes 
     on hunting and fishing equipment to support wildlife 
     diversity and abundance, through enactment of the Federal Aid 
     in Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the 
     Pittman-Robertson Act) and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish 
     Restoration (commonly referred to as the Dingell-Johnson/
     Wallop-Breaux Act);
       (7) State programs, adequately funded to conserve a broader 
     array of wildlife in an individual State and conducted in 
     coordination with Federal State, tribal, and private 
     landowners and interested organizations, would continue to 
     serve as a vital link in a nationwide effort to restore game 
     and nongame wildlife, and the essential elements of such 
     programs should include conservation measures which manage 
     for a diverse variety of populations of wildlife; and
       (8) it is proper for Congress to bolster and extend this 
     highly successful program to aid game and nongame wildlife in 
     supporting the health and diversity of habitat, as well as 
     providing funds for conservation education.

     SEC. 303. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to extend financial and technical assistance to the 
     States under the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act for 
     the benefit of a diverse array of wildlife and associated 
     habitats, including species that are not hunted or fished, to 
     fulfill unmet needs of wildlife within the States while 
     recognizing the mandate of the States to conserve all 
     wildlife;
       (2) to assure sound conservation policies through the 
     development, revision and implementation of wildlife 
     associated recreation and wildlife associated education and 
     wildlife conservation law enforcement;
       (3) to encourage State fish and wildlife agencies to create 
     partnerships between the Federal Government, other State 
     agencies, wildlife conservation organizations, and outdoor 
     recreation and conservation interests through cooperative 
     planning and implementation of this title; and
       (4) to encourage State fish and wildlife agencies to 
     provide for public involvement in the process of development 
     and implementation of a wildlife conservation and restoration 
     program.

     SEC. 304. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Reference to Law.--In this title, the term ``Federal 
     Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act'' means the Act of September 
     2, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.), commonly referred to as the 
     Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act or the Pittman-
     Robertson Act.
       (b) Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program.--Section 
     2 of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 
     669a) is amended by inserting after ``shall be construed'' in 
     the first place it appears the following: ``to include the 
     wildlife conservation and restoration program and''.
       (c) State Agencies.--Section 2 of the Federal Aid in 
     Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669a) is amended by 
     inserting ``or State fish and wildlife department'' after 
     ``State fish and game department''.
       (d) Conservation.--Section 2 is amended by striking the 
     period at the end thereof, substituting a semicolon, and 
     adding the following: ``the term `conservation' shall be 
     construed to mean the use of methods and procedures necessary 
     or desirable to sustain healthy populations of wildlife 
     including all activities associated with scientific resources 
     management such as research, census, monitoring of 
     populations, acquisition, improvement and management of 
     habitat, live trapping and transplantation, wildlife damage 
     management, and periodic or total protection of a species or 
     population as well as the taking of individuals within 
     wildlife stock or population if permitted by applicable State 
     and Federal law; the term `wildlife conservation and 
     restoration program' shall be construed to mean a program 
     developed by a State fish and wildlife department that the 
     Secretary determines meets the criteria in section 6(d), the 
     projects that constitute such a program, which may be 
     implemented in whole or part through grants and contracts by 
     a State to other State, Federal, or local agencies wildlife 
     conservation organizations and outdoor recreation and 
     conservation education entities from funds apportioned under 
     this title, and maintenance of such projects; the term 
     `wildlife' shall be construed to mean any species of wild, 
     free- ranging fauna including fish, and also fauna in captive 
     breeding programs the object of which is to reintroduce 
     individuals of a depleted indigenous species into previously 
     occupied range; the term `wildlife-associated recreation' 
     shall be construed to mean projects intended to meet the 
     demand for outdoor activities associated with wildlife 
     including, but not limited to, hunting and fishing, such 
     projects as construction or restoration of wildlife viewing 
     areas, observation towers, blinds, platforms, land and water 
     trails, water access, trailheads, and access for such 
     projects; and the term `wildlife conservation education' 
     shall be construed to mean projects, including public 
     outreach, intended to foster responsible natural resource 
     stewardship.''.
       (e) 7 Percent.--Subsection 3(a) of the Federal Aid in 
     Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b(a)) is amended in 
     the first sentence by--
       (1) inserting ``(1)'' after ``(beginning with the fiscal 
     year 1975)''; and
       (2) inserting after ``Internal Revenue Code of 1954'' the 
     following: ``, and (2) from 7 percent of the revenues, as 
     that term is defined in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act 
     of 1999,''.

     SEC. 305. SUBACCOUNTS AND REFUNDS.

       Section 3 of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 669b) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsections:
       ``(c) A subaccount shall be established in the Federal aid 
     to wildlife restoration fund in the Treasury to be known as 
     the `wildlife conservation and restoration account' and the 
     credits to such account shall be equal to the 7 percent of 
     revenues referred to in subsection (a)(2). Amounts in such 
     account shall be invested by the Secretary of the Treasury as 
     set forth in subsection (b) and shall be made available 
     without further appropriation, together with interest, for 
     apportionment at the beginning of fiscal year 2000 and each 
     fiscal year thereafter to carry out State wildlife 
     conservation and restoration programs.
       ``(d) Funds covered into the wildlife conservation and 
     restoration account shall supplement, but not replace, 
     existing funds available to the States from the sport fish 
     restoration and wildlife restoration accounts and shall be 
     used for the development, revision, and implementation of 
     wildlife conservation and restoration programs and should be 
     used to address the unmet needs for a diverse array of 
     wildlife and associated habitats, including species that are 
     not hunted or fished, for wildlife conservation, wildlife 
     conservation education, and wildlife-associated recreation 
     projects: Provided, That such funds may be used for new 
     programs and projects as well as to enhance existing programs 
     and projects.
       ``(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this Act, 
     with respect to the wildlife conservation and restoration 
     account so much of the appropriation apportioned to any State 
     for any fiscal year as remains unexpended at the close 
     thereof is authorized to be made available for expenditure in 
     that State until the close of the fourth succeeding fiscal 
     year. Any amount apportioned to any State under this 
     subsection that is unexpended or unobligated at the end of 
     the period during which it is available for expenditure on 
     any project is authorized to be reapportioned to all States 
     during the succeeding fiscal year.
       ``(f) In those instances where through judicial decision, 
     administrative review, arbitration, or other means there are 
     royalty refunds owed to entities generating revenues 
     available for purposes of this Act, 7 percent of such refunds 
     shall be paid from amounts available under subsection 
     (a)(2).''.

     SEC. 306. ALLOCATION OF SUBACCOUNT RECEIPTS.

       Section 4 of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 669c) is amended by adding the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), an amount, not to 
     exceed 2 percent, of the revenues covered into the wildlife 
     conservation and restoration account in each fiscal year as 
     the Secretary of the Interior may estimate to be necessary 
     for expenses in the administration and execution of programs 
     carried out under the wildlife conservation and restoration 
     account shall be deducted for that purpose, and such amount 
     is authorized to be made available therefor until the 
     expiration of the next succeeding fiscal year. Within 60 days 
     after the close of such fiscal year, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall apportion any portion thereof as remains 
     unexpended, if any, on the same basis and in the same manner 
     as is provided under paragraphs (2) and (3).
       ``(2) The Secretary of the Interior, after making the 
     deduction under paragraph (1), shall make the following 
     apportionment from the amount remaining in the wildlife 
     conservation and restoration account:
       ``(A) to the District of Columbia and to the Commonwealth 
     of Puerto Rico, each a sum equal to not more than \1/2\ of 1 
     percent thereof; and
       ``(B) to Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, each a sum 
     equal to not more than \1/6\ of 1 percent thereof.
       ``(3) The Secretary of the Interior, after making the 
     deduction under paragraph (1)

[[Page 751]]

     and the apportionment under paragraph (2), shall apportion 
     the remaining amount in the wildlife conservation and 
     restoration account for each year among the States in the 
     following manner:
       ``(A) \1/3\ of which is based on the ratio to which the 
     land area of such State bears to the total land area of all 
     such States; and
       ``(B) \2/3\ of which is based on the ratio to which the 
     population of such State bears to the total population of all 
     such States.

     ``The amounts apportioned under this paragraph shall be 
     adjusted equitably so that no such State shall be apportioned 
     a sum which is less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the amount 
     available for apportionment under this paragraph for any 
     fiscal year or more than 5 percent of such amount.''.
       ``(d) Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Programs.--Any 
     State, through its fish and wildlife department, may apply to 
     the Secretary for approval of a wildlife conservation and 
     restoration program or for funds to develop a program, which 
     shall--
       ``(1) contain provision for vesting in the fish and 
     wildlife department of overall responsibility and 
     accountability for development and implementation of the 
     program; and
       ``(2) contain provision for development and implementation 
     of--
       ``(A) wildlife conservation projects which expand and 
     support existing wildlife programs to meet the needs of a 
     diverse array of wildlife species,
       ``(B) wildlife associated recreation programs, and
       ``(C) wildlife conservation education projects.

     If the Secretary of the Interior finds that an application 
     for such program contains the elements specified in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), the Secretary shall approve such 
     application and set aside from the apportionment to the State 
     made pursuant to section 4(c) an amount that shall not exceed 
     90 percent of the estimated cost of developing and 
     implementing segments of the program for the first 5 fiscal 
     years following enactment of this subsection and not to 
     exceed 75 percent thereafter. Not more than 10 percent of the 
     amounts apportioned to each State from the subaccount for the 
     State's wildlife conservation and restoration program may be 
     used for law enforcement. Following approval, the Secretary 
     may make payments on a project that is a segment of the 
     State's wildlife conservation and restoration program as the 
     project progresses but such payments, including previous 
     payments on the project, if any, shall not be more than the 
     United States pro rata share of such project. The Secretary, 
     under such regulations as he may prescribe, may advance funds 
     representing the United States pro rata share of a project 
     that is a segment of a wildlife conservation and restoration 
     program, including funds to develop such program. For 
     purposes of this subsection, the term `State' shall include 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and 
     the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.''.
       (b) FACA.--Coordination with State fish and wildlife 
     department personnel or with personnel of other State 
     agencies pursuant to the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration 
     Act or the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act shall 
     not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
     U.S.C. App.). Except for the preceding sentence, the 
     provisions of this title relate solely to wildlife 
     conservation and restoration programs as defined in this 
     title and shall not be construed to affect the provisions of 
     the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act relating to 
     wildlife restoration projects or the provisions of the 
     Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act relating to fish 
     restoration and management projects.

     SEC. 307. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC RELATIONS.

       The third sentence of subsection (a) of section 8 of the 
     Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669g) is 
     amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof: 
     ``, except that funds available from this subaccount for a 
     State wildlife conservation and restoration program may be 
     used for law enforcement and public relations''.

     SEC. 308. PROHIBITION AGAINST DIVERSION.

       No designated State agency shall be eligible to receive 
     matching funds under this Act if sources of revenue available 
     to it on January 1, 1998, for conservation of wildlife are 
     diverted for any purpose other than the administration of the 
     designated State agency, it being the intention of Congress 
     that funds available to States under this Act be added to 
     revenues from existing State sources and not serve as a 
     substitute for revenues from such sources. Such revenues 
     shall include interest, dividends, or other income earned on 
     the foregoing.

  Mr. MURKOWKSI. Mr. President, I rise today, along with a bipartisan 
group of Senators, to introduce the Conservation and Reinvestment Act 
of 1999.
  This important piece of legislation remedies a tremendous inequity in 
the distribution of revenues generated by offshore oil and gas 
production by directing that a portion of those moneys be allocated to 
coastal States and communities who shoulder the responsibility for 
energy development activity off their coastlines. It also provides a 
secure funding source for state recreation and wildlife conservation 
programs.
  By reinvesting revenues from offshore oil and gas production into a 
variety of important conservation, recreation and environmental 
programs, this bill will rededicate the Federal government to a 
partnership with state and local governments to meet the demands of all 
Americans for outdoor experiences. In addition, it reaffirms the 
original premise of the Land and Water Conservation Fund that a portion 
of the revenues obtained by the Federal government from the development 
of our natural resources should be reinvested into the outdoor 
recreation and natural resource estate of the Nation.
  This bill is the start of a process. It is a bipartisan bill. And, 
like any bipartisan bill reflects choices and compromises. It contains 
provisions which need to be examined in detail as the legislative 
process moves forward. I also anticipate a series of amendments from 
both sides of the aisle to the bill. I know there are amendments I 
intend to offer to make this bill a better bill for my constituents. 
That is what the legislative process is all about. As Chairman of the 
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I promise to devote 
the time necessary to flesh these issues out and to give all parties 
which have interest in this bill an opportunity to be heard. This bill 
warrants nothing less.
  Title 1 of the bill, which provides for coastal impact assistance, is 
similar to legislation I have introduced in prior Congresses and is an 
issue I have worked on for my entire Senate career.
  Title 1 is based on a Minerals Management Service advisory committee 
report. It directs that 27 percent of the revenues generated from oil 
and natural gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf--or OCS--be 
returned to coastal States and communities that share the burdens of 
exploration and production off their coastlines. Offshore oil and gas 
production generates $3 to $4 billion in revenues annually for the U.S. 
Treasury. Yet, unlike mineral receipts from onshore Federal lands, OCS 
oil and gas revenues are not directly returned to the States in which 
production occurs.
  This legislation remedies this disparity. States and communities that 
bear the responsibilities for offshore oil and gas production will 
finally share in its benefits. This legislation would, for the first 
time, share revenues generated by OCS oil and gas activities with 
counties, parishes and boroughs--the local governmental entities most 
directly affected--and State governments.
  The bill also acknowledges that all coastal States, including those 
States bordering the Great Lakes, have unique needs and directs that a 
portion of OCS revenues be shared with these States, even if no OCS 
production occurs off their coasts. Coastal States and communities can 
use OCS Impact Assistance funds on everything from environmental 
programs, to coastal and marine conservation efforts, to new 
infrastructure requirements.
  In Alaska, Boroughs could use OCS funds to participate in the 
environmental planning process required by Federal laws before OCS 
development occurs. Other rural coastal communities in Alaska could use 
the money for sanitation improvements. While still others, like 
Unalakleet, may use the money to construct sea walls and breakwaters or 
beach rehabilitation--efforts which will combat the impacts of coastal 
erosion. Further, as the Federal OCS program expands in Alaska, this 
legislation will mean even more revenues to the State, boroughs and 
local communities.
  This is a true investment in the future. This is money that will be 
used, day-in and day-out, to improve the quality of life of coastal 
State residents--money which come from oil and gas production.
  As Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I know all 
too well that offshore oil and gas production is a lightning rod of 
environmental groups who will go to great

[[Page 752]]

lengths to disparage an activity that is vital to the long-term energy 
and economic security of this country. These groups will likely say 
that this bill creates incentives for offshore oil and gas production 
because a factor in the distribution formula is a State's proximity to 
OCS production.
  Let us remember, this is an impact assistance bill--revenue sharing, 
if you will. States only will have impacts if they have production. The 
States with production, obviously, have greater needs and are most 
deserving of a large share of OCS revenues.
  Mr. President, let me also remind everyone, that OCS production only 
occurs off the coasts of 6 States--yet the bill shares OCS revenues 
with 34 States. There are 28 coastal States that will get a share of 
OCS revenues which have no OCS production. In fact, in all areas except 
the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska there is a moratorium prohibiting any new 
OCS production.
  It is the long-term best interest of this country to support 
responsible and sustainable development of nonrenewable resources. We 
now import more than 50 percent of our domestic petroleum requirements 
and the Department of Energy's Information Administration predicts, in 
ten years, America will be at least 64 percent dependent on foreign 
oil. OCS development will play an important role in offsetting even 
greater dependence on foreign energy.
  The OCS accounts for 24 percent of this Nation's natural gas 
production and 14 percent of its oil production. We need to ensure that 
the OCS continues to meet our future domestic energy needs.
  I firmly believe that the Federal government needs to do all it can 
to pursue and encourage further technological advances in OCS 
exploration and production. These technological achievements have and 
will continue to result in new OCS production having an unparalleled 
record of excellence on environmental and safety issues. Additional 
technological advances with appropriate incentives will further improve 
new resource recovery and therefore increase revenues to the Treasury 
for the benefit of all Americans who enjoy programs funded by OCS 
money.
  I will do all I can to ensure a healthy OCS program, including new 
OCS development in the Arctic. A number of challenges face new 
developments in this area--I am confident that we can work through them 
all. History has shown us that in the Arctic, and in other OCS areas, 
development and the environmental protection are compatible.
  This bill also takes a portion of the revenues received by the 
Federal government from OCS development and invests it in conservation 
and wildlife programs. Thus, Titles 2 and 3 of the bill share OCS 
revenues with ALL States for these purposes.
  Title 2 of this bill provides a secure source of funding for the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund. The LWCF was established over three 
decades ago to provide Federal money for State and Federal land 
acquisition and help meet Americans recreation needs.
  Over thirty years ago, Congress had the foresight to recognize the 
ever growing need of the American public for parks and recreation 
facilities with the passage of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
Act. That landmark piece of legislation was premised on the belief that 
revenues earned from the depletion of a nonrenewable resource need to 
be reinvested in a renewable resource for the benefit of future 
generations. This rationale is as valid today as it was in the mid-
1960s.
  To accomplish this goal, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
directs that revenues earned from offshore oil and gas production 
should be spent on the acquisition of Federal recreation lands by the 
land management agencies. The Act also creates a state-side matching 
grant program.
  The state-side matching grant program provides 50-50 matching grants 
to States and local communities for the acquisition and construction of 
park and recreation facilities. The state-side program has a truly 
unique legacy in the history of American conservation by providing the 
States with a leadership role in the provision of recreation 
opportunities. Through the 1995 Fiscal Year, over 3.2 billion in 
Federal dollars have been leveraged to fund over 37 thousand state and 
local park and recreation projects.
  Yet, despite these successes, the President had not requested any 
money for the state-side program for the last four years. This is a 
program supported by this Nation's mayors, Governors, and the 
recreation community. The state-side matching grant should not have to 
justify annually its existence with Congressional appropriators.
  The same can be said of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery 
program established by Congress in 1978. UPAR provides Federal funds to 
distressed urban areas to rehabilitate and construct recreation 
facilities.
  Together, these programs strived to create a national system of parks 
that would, day-in and day-out, meet the recreation and open-space 
demands of the American public. Title 2 recognizes the value of the 
state-side LWCF matching grant program and the UPAR program by 
providing them with the stable source of funding they have been 
lacking.
  I also want to mention the money this bill provides for Federal land 
acquisition. To many westerners, including myself, the Federal 
government already owns too much land. In my state of Alaska, the four 
Federal land management agencies alone manage more than 60 percent of 
all the acreage in the State.
  Nonetheless, the demand for Federal land acquisition dollars is 
significant. The four Federal land management agencies have identified 
more than 45 million acres of privately owned lands lying within the 
boundaries of Federal land management units, including national parks, 
national forests, and national wildlife refuges. Many of these 
inholders, who want to sell, have been waiting for decades to receive 
compensation from the Federal government for their property. In many 
instances these landowners must suffer with restrictions on access to 
and use of their lands while they wait endlessly for the funds to 
compensate them for their land.
  In recognition of these competing propositions regarding Federal 
ownership, the bill tries to reach a balance. It provides money for 
Federal land acquisition. However, limitations are placed on its 
expenditure. First, Federal land acquisition money available under this 
bill only could be used to purchase lands within the boundaries of 
conservation areas established by an Act of Congress. Second, such 
lands only could be purchased from willing sellers. That is, the 
Federal land acquisition money available under this bill could not be 
used to condemn any property. The use of eminent domain is explicitly 
foreclosed. Third, three-quarters of the money must be spent on land 
acquisition east of the 100th meridian (east of Texas). These 
provisions are more restrictive than the current law regarding the use 
of LWCF moneys for Federal land acquisitions.
  I know that there are many who are not happy with this compromise. I 
cannot say I am happy totally with it. I do not think it provides 
adequate protections for the roles and responsibilities of the 
authorizing and appropriations committees. I can pledge that this will 
be an issue subject to discussions on the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee. Under our Constitutional system of government, Congress has 
the plenary authority over Federal lands and appropriations. I believe 
that the historic role of Congress is setting the priorities for land 
acquisition should be preserved. Certainly, the President should set 
forth his preferences, as he does now, but in the final analysis the 
Congress should approved any expenditure.
  Title 3 of this bill provides funding for State fish and wildlife 
conservation programs. In Alaska, with its unparalleled natural beauty, 
fishing and hunting are two of the most popular forms of outdoor 
recreation. The bill directs that a portion of OCS revenues should go 
to the State for wildlife purposes.
  The money would be distributed through the Pittman-Robertson program 
administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This money 
could be used for both game and non-game wildlife. With the inclusion

[[Page 753]]

of OCS revenues, the amount of money available for state fish and game 
programs would nearly double.
  This is a no-tax alternative to the ``Teaming with Wildlife'' 
proposal. States will be able to use these moneys to increase fish and 
wildlife populations and improve fish and wildlife habitat. States also 
could use the money for wildlife education programs.
  The bill creates a new subaccount, under Pittman-Robertson, called 
the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration account. The money in this 
account, from OCS revenues, will provide the funding needed to move the 
conservation community beyond the debate over game versus non-game 
funding. States will have the flexibility on deciding how to spend 
these funds to meet the conservation demands of all their residents.
  I am proud of this proposal which will be a win-win for the oil and 
gas industry, the States, environmental and conservation groups, and 
all Americans.
  I know it will be a win-win for Alaskans. Alaska is projected to 
receive more than $130 million annually from this proposal. In Fiscal 
Year 2000, Alaska would receive approximately $110 million in OCS 
Impact Assistance. Of this total, the State would receive $44 million 
as would coastal communities within 200 miles of an OCS lease including 
the North Slope Borough, Barrow, and Kaktovik. Other coastal 
communities, not near an OCS lease, like Valdez and Homer, would 
receive $22 million. These funds could be used for infrastructure, 
including sanitation improvements and safe roads, coastal erosion 
projects, and environmental protection programs. Title 2 and 3 of the 
bill provide an additional $21 million for state and local park, 
recreation, and wildlife conservation programs.
  These funds are sorely needed to meet the needs of the communities in 
Alaska and the skyrocketing public demand for wildlife and outdoor 
recreation programs and facilities within the State. Given this demand, 
I have received letters of support from throughout Alaska, including 
the cities of Barrow, Cordova, Soldotna, Haines, Sitka, Kotzebue and 
the Kodiak Island Burrough.
  This bill is far from perfect but it is a step to ensuring not only 
that Coastal States have money to address the effects of OCS-activities 
but that all States have funds necessary to provide outdoor recreation 
and conservation resources for all of us to enjoy.
  As we begin the 106th Congress, I can pledge, as Chairman of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, that the enactment of this bill 
will be one of my highest priorities this year. I intend to hold a 
series of hearings on the bill to examine, in detail, its provisions. 
In closing, I encourage not only the members of the Senate but also all 
Americans to support this important and exciting piece of conservation 
legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues, Senators, 
Murkowski and Landrieu in introducing the bipartisan ``Conservation and 
Re-Investment Act of 1999''. The Conservation and Re-Investment Act 
will serve to provide dedicated funding for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, wildlife enhancement programs and urban parks 
development by redirecting a portions of the royalty revenues derived 
from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production. In addition, this 
bill will redirect a portion of Outer Continental Shelf royalties 
directly back to coastal states which have been impacted by Outer 
Continental Shelf oil and gas production in order to assist those 
states in restoring and preserving air quality, water quality, 
wetlands, estuaries and other coastal resources and environments 
impacted by Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production.
  This bill will allow coastal states to create trust funds, the 
revenues of which can be used in perpetuity for such purposes as 
environmental protection, conservation, water quality and public land 
purchases. Recognizing the boom and bust nature of oil and gas 
production, Alabama long ago created a protected trust fund from the 
oil and gas royalties it receives from development off its' coast. The 
revenues derived from the investment this fund have been used by the 
state to fund popular wildlife conservation programs and the state's 
``Forever Wild'' program. These programs have permitted the state to 
make land purchases to create and expand Alabama's park system and to 
help create additional outdoor recreation opportunities for its 
citizens. It is my hope that this bill will create the conduit for 
other states and the federal government to follow the example set by my 
home state of Alabama. While the revenues derived from this fund will 
be limited to the goals of the Conservation and Re-Investment Act, a 
prudent coastal state must consider this option to guard against the 
boom and bust nature of the oil and gas business.
  Mr. President, this bill will go a long way towards protecting the 
environment and increasing conservation in coastal states and the 
entire nation by creating a dedicated funding mechanism to fulfill 
these goals. We, along with future generations, will benefit greatly 
from this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
craft a bill which can continue to enjoy bi-partisan support and be 
passed into law.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my 
colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Murkowski and Sessions, in introducing 
the Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act.
  Mr. President, since the inception of the oil and gas program on the 
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), States and coastal communities have 
sought a greater share of the benefits from development. And why 
shouldn't they? These communities provide the infrastructure, public 
services, manpower and support industries necessary to sustain this 
development.
  Currently, the majority of OCS revenues are funneled into the Federal 
Treasury where they are used to pay for various Federal programs and to 
reduce the deficit. While funding programs and reducing the deficit is 
certainly important, I believe that some percentage of the revenues 
should be reinvested in the affected region.
  Our bill does just that. The Reinvestment and Environmental 
Restoration Act diverts one-half of the OCS revenues from the Federal 
Treasury to coastal States and communities for a multitude of programs: 
air and water quality monitoring, wetlands protection, coastal 
restoration and shoreline protection, land acquisition, infrastructure, 
public service needs, State park and recreation programs and wildlife 
conservation.
  This bill allows States and communities to use these funds. These 
States will effectively use the funds for local needs. In Pascagoula, 
for example, authorities might choose to restore and secure the 
shoreline where years of sea traffic have taken their toll. Further 
north in Vancleave, they may choose instead to refurbish the roads and 
bridges that carry the heavy machinery coming and going from the coast. 
This bill provides a framework within which these localities can make 
the right decisions for their citizens and their environment.
  Mr. President, I have been working on this issue for many, many 
years. As a ``coast dweller myself,'' I know the impact that the oil 
and gas industry can have on communities and the importance of 
reinvestment in these areas. This is not to say that the industry 
mistreats the States; on the contrary, they work very hard to comply 
with stringent environmental regulations and to take care of the 
community as best they can. The OCS Policy Committee said in 1993 that, 
despite the oil industry's best efforts, ``OCS development still can 
affect community infrastructure, social services and the environment in 
ways that cause concerns among residents of the coastal States and 
communities.''
  I know that there is no way to totally eliminate this impact on 
coastal communities. I also know that, while the benefits of a healthy 
OCS program are felt nationally, the infrastructure, environmental and 
social costs are felt locally. Our bill would put money back into the 
communities that need it most.
  It would also put money back into the environmental resources of the

[[Page 754]]

area. Exploration for non-renewable resources and stewardship of 
coastal resources are not mutually exclusive, but must be carefully 
balanced for both to be sustained. It is important that wetlands, 
fisheries and water resources are taken into consideration. Affordable 
adequate protection is possible.
  In addition to supporting up the States and coastal communities, our 
bill also provides funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
(LWCF). More than 30 years ago, Congress set up this fund to address 
the American public's desire for more parks and recreational 
facilities. This bill makes the program self-sufficient, providing a 
secure funding source from the OCS revenues. This is an investment in 
our future--our land, our natural resources and our recreational 
enjoyment.
  Mr. President, our bill makes yet another investment with these OCS 
revenues--an investment in fish and wildlife programs. With the 
inclusion of OCS revenues, the amount of money available for State 
programs would nearly double. This is money that can be used to 
increase fish and wildlife populations and habitats. It could even be 
used for wildlife education programs.
  Mr. President, this bill was carefully crafted to strike a balance 
between the needs and interests of the oil and gas industry, the 
States, and the environmental and conservation groups. It's a good 
package that will benefit all Americans, not just those who live and 
work in coastal areas. It will benefit hunters and anglers. It will 
benefit bird watchers and campers. It will benefit all Americans who 
take solace in the fact that the oil industry is taking care of the 
communities that support it.
  I appreciate the hard work of my colleagues and look forward to 
advancing this important legislation in the 106th Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Thompson, Mr. 
        Levin, Ms. Collins, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Wellstone, 
        Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Reid, Mr. Bryan, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, Mr. Robb, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Kerrey, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bayh, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Graham, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Chafee):
  S. 26. A bill entitled the ``Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 
1999''; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.


                 bipartisan campaign reform act of 1999

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the American campaign finance system is 
manifestly corrupt. So we are back. And here we will return until 
America's citizens regain dominion over their government. It is my 
great pleasure to join Sen. John McCain to once again introduce a 
bipartisan campaign finance reform bill in the United States Senate. 
This is the third Congress in which we have taken up this fight 
together. I want to thank my friend and colleague Senator McCain for 
his tireless devotion to this issue and his continued willingness to 
defy the leadership of his party to press it. It will take great effort 
to achieve consensus and pass this legislation. But I truly do believe 
that we can make a breakthrough this year, and the reintroduction of 
the McCain-Feingold bill is the first step toward making that happen.
  Mr. President, our democracy is sick. The corrupting influence of big 
money is taking a daily toll on our work here in the Congress and on 
the confidence of the American people in our ability to do that work 
fairly and in their interests. The future of our country is truly at 
stake in this fight for reform, and that is why, despite the setbacks 
we have suffered in the last two Congress, despite our inability in the 
last two Congresses to overcome filibusters by a minority of this body, 
we are back on the floor today. On the first day that bills can be 
introduced in the United States Senate, I am here to serve notice that 
reform is at the top of the list of things that we must do in this 
Congress. And I commit to the American people, and to my constituents 
in Wisconsin who reelected me to do precisely this job, that I will 
fight for reform throughout this year and the next year, if need be, 
until we win.
  Let me take a moment, Mr. President, to review what the McCain-
Feingold bill tries to accomplish. First and foremost, we ban soft 
money--the unlimited contributions that corporate, labor, and very 
wealthy individual donors can now give to the political parties. We 
must bring back some sanity to the campaign finance system by making 
the parties and donors live once again within the rules that the 
Congress passed back in the 1970's after the Watergate era. Perhaps 
some of those rules need to be updated, but throwing the rules out is 
not an option. The potential for corruption of our legislative process 
is too great. I will return to the issue of prohibiting soft money in a 
moment, because it is central to the goals of our bill.
  Mr. President, this bill also includes the amendment dealing with 
abuses of ``issue advocacy'' proposed by Senator Snowe of Maine and 
Senator Jeffords of Vermont and adopted by the Senate last year during 
debate on our bill. The Snowe-Jeffords amendment is a balanced approach 
to the ``phony issue ad'' problem that prohibits corporations and 
unions from purchasing television and radio advertisements within the 
last 2 months of a campaign if those ads refer to a clearly identified 
candidate. It is designed to prevent corporate and union treasury 
money, which has been banned from federal elections since early in this 
century, from making its way back into the elections in the form of 
advertisements that pretend to be about issues, but instead are about 
elections.
  Advocacy groups, on the other hand, are permitted to purchase what 
the bill calls ``electioneering communications,'' as long as they 
disclose their expenditures and the major donors to the effort and take 
steps to prevent the use of corporate and union treasury money for the 
ads. Mr. President, we worked long and hard to perfect this amendment 
last year, to make sure that it is constitutional, and that it will be 
effective in combating what has become a very serious subterfuge 
engaged in by entities that plainly want to influence elections but 
don't want to abide by the election laws. It is a crucial piece of the 
campaign finance reform puzzle, and we are proud to have the support of 
Senators Snowe and Jeffords for our effort and to include their 
proposal in our bill.
  The McCain-Feingold bill also takes a further step in addressing the 
spending of unions in elections by codifying the so-called Beck 
decision. Under our bill, non-union members who are required to pay 
agency fees to unions under their state laws will be able to demand an 
accounting of the use of their fees, and to prevent those fees from 
being spent for electoral purposes. This provision does not go as far 
as some of our colleagues might like, but it is a fair and balanced 
provision that recognizes the need to tread lightly on this issue to 
maintain bipartisan support for the bill.
  The bill also contains important provisions designed to improve 
enforcement and disclosure under our campaign finance laws. It requires 
electronic filing and posting of campaign finance information on the 
Internet to make sure that the public can quickly and easily determine 
who the major contributors are to candidates and parties. It doubles 
the penalties for ``knowing and willful'' violations of Federal 
election laws. It provides for more timely disclosure of independent 
expenditures. It requires campaigns to collect all required contributor 
information before depositing checks. And it permits the FEC to conduct 
random audits at the end of a campaign to ensure compliance with the 
Federal election laws.
  Our bill also requires political advertisements to carry a disclaimer 
identifying who is responsible for the content of the campaign ad; and 
it bars Members of Congress from sending out taxpayer-financed franked 
mass mailings during the calendar year of their election.
  It also addresses two important areas where we have learned in the 
past few years that the law is simply not clear enough or strong 
enough. Our bill

[[Page 755]]

makes it clear that it is unlawful to raise or solicit campaign 
contributions on Federal property, including the White House and the 
congressional office buildings. And it makes it clear that 
contributions from foreign governments and foreign nationals are 
prohibited in Federal, State and local elections, including donations 
of soft money.
  Mr. President, this fight is a fight for the soul and the survival of 
our American democracy. This democracy cannot survive without the 
confidence of the people in the integrity of the legislative and the 
electoral process. The prevalence--no--the dominance--of money in our 
system of elections and our legislature will in the end cause them to 
crumble. If we don't take steps to clean up this system it ultimately 
will consume us along with our finest American ideals.
  We are now engaged in an historic impeachment trial, in which we are 
asked to determine as jurors whether the President has committed ``high 
crimes and misdemeanors'' and should be removed from office. The 
American people are divided on this question.
  But the American people do think it's a crime that the tobacco 
companies can use money to block a bill to curtail teen smoking. They 
do think it's a crime that insurance companies can use money to block 
desperately needed health care reform. They do think it's a crime that 
telecommunication companies use money to force a bill through Congress 
that's supposed to increase competition and decrease prices, but leads 
to cable rates that keep on rising and rising. And they do think it's a 
crime that corporations and unions are able to give unlimited soft 
money contributions to the political parties to advance their narrow 
special interests.
  They think it's a crime. But here in Washington it is business as 
usual--until we manage to pass meaningful campaign finance reform.
  Let me be clear Mr. President, I'm not suggesting that any individual 
Member of Congress is corrupt. I don't know that any Member of this 
body has ever traded a vote for a contribution. But while Members are 
not corrupt, the system is riddled with corruption. It is only human to 
want to help those who have helped you get elected or reelected, to 
agree to the meeting, to take the phone call, to allow the opportunity 
to be persuaded by those who have given money. It is true of the 
parties, and it is true of the Members, even those who seek always to 
cast their votes on the merits. The result is that people who don't 
have money don't get heard. And in the end, those who get heard get 
their way.
  Mr. President, as you know, I won a very hard fought campaign last 
year in which soft money and issue ads and campaign spending were much 
discussed issues. I learned a lot from that campaign, and my experience 
has made me even more certain that the system we now live under must be 
changed and can be changed.
  As we once again take up this charge, I can tell you how enjoyable 
and rewarding it can be to run a campaign where endless fundraising is 
not part of your daily routine. And how it is possible to run a decent 
campaign without getting down in this soft money swamp.
  Mr. President, we don't need to point fingers at one another, we just 
have to rise above politics and do the right thing by the American 
people. We must clean up our own house, Mr. President. We cannot 
continue to ignore the corruption in our midst, the cancer that is 
eating the heart out of the great American compact of trust and faith 
between the people and their elected representatives.
  We know that unlimited soft money contributions make a mockery of our 
election laws and threaten the fairness of the legislative process. We 
know that phony issue ads paid for with unlimited corporate and union 
funds undermine the ability of citizens to understand who is 
bankrolling the candidates and why. We can find bipartisan solutions to 
these problems that respect all legitimate First Amendment rights if we 
are willing to put partisan political advantage aside and sit down and 
work it out.
  Senator McCain and I are ready--we have been ready ever since we 
introduced our bill--to make changes to our bill that will bring new 
supporters on board and get us past the 60 vote threshold that the 
Senate rules have placed in our way, so long as we stay true to the 
goal of a cleaner, fairer, system in which money will no longer 
dominate.
  We will all be proud of the results if we can do that Mr. President. 
And the American people will be proud of us. So I look forward to 
working with Senator McCain and with all my colleagues who want to give 
the American people a campaign finance system that will protect and 
nurture our democracy as we enter the 21st century.
  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. 26

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

     SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Bipartisan 
     Campaign Reform Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

            TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE

Sec. 101. Soft money of political parties.
Sec. 102. Increased contribution limits for State committees of 
              political parties and aggregate contribution limit for 
              individuals.
Sec. 103. Reporting requirements.

           TITLE II--INDEPENDENT AND COORDINATED EXPENDITURES

               Subtitle A--Electioneering Communications

Sec. 201. Disclosure of electioneering communications.
Sec. 202. Coordinated communications as contributions.
Sec. 203. Prohibition of corporate and labor disbursements for 
              electioneering communications.

          Subtitle B--Independent and Coordinated Expenditures

Sec. 211. Definition of independent expenditure.
Sec. 212. Civil penalty.
Sec. 213. Reporting requirements for certain independent expenditures.
Sec. 214. Independent versus coordinated expenditures by party.
Sec. 215. Coordination with candidates.

                         TITLE III--DISCLOSURE

Sec. 301. Filing of reports using computers and facsimile machines; 
              filing by Senate candidates with Commission.
Sec. 302. Prohibition of deposit of contributions with incomplete 
              contributor information.
Sec. 303. Audits.
Sec. 304. Reporting requirements for contributions of $50 or more.
Sec. 305. Use of candidates' names.
Sec. 306. Prohibition of false representation to solicit contributions.
Sec. 307. Soft money of persons other than political parties.
Sec. 308. Campaign advertising.

                    TITLE IV--PERSONAL WEALTH OPTION

Sec. 401. Voluntary personal funds expenditure limit.
Sec. 402. Political party committee coordinated expenditures.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 501. Codification of Beck decision.
Sec. 502. Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes.
Sec. 503. Limit on congressional use of the franking privilege.
Sec. 504. Prohibition of fundraising on Federal property.
Sec. 505. Penalties for knowing and willful violations.
Sec. 506. Strengthening foreign money ban.
Sec. 507. Prohibition of contributions by minors.
Sec. 508. Expedited procedures.
Sec. 509. Initiation of enforcement proceeding.

 TITLE VI--SEVERABILITY; CONSTITUTIONALITY; EFFECTIVE DATE; REGULATIONS

Sec. 601. Severability.
Sec. 602. Review of constitutional issues.
Sec. 603. Effective date.
Sec. 604. Regulations.
            TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE

     SEC. 101. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 323. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       ``(a) National Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--A national committee of a political 
     party (including a national congressional campaign committee 
     of a political

[[Page 756]]

     party) and any officers or agents of such party committees, 
     shall not solicit, receive, or direct to another person a 
     contribution, donation, or transfer of funds, or spend any 
     funds, that are not subject to the limitations, prohibitions, 
     and reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply to an 
     entity that is directly or indirectly established, financed, 
     maintained, or controlled by a national committee of a 
     political party (including a national congressional campaign 
     committee of a political party), or an entity acting on 
     behalf of a national committee, and an officer or agent 
     acting on behalf of any such committee or entity.
       ``(b) State, District, and Local Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--An amount that is expended or disbursed 
     by a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     (including an entity that is directly or indirectly 
     established, financed, maintained, or controlled by a State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party and an 
     officer or agent acting on behalf of such committee or 
     entity) for Federal election activity shall be made from 
     funds subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Federal election activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `Federal election activity' 
     means--
       ``(i) voter registration activity during the period that 
     begins on the date that is 120 days before the date a 
     regularly scheduled Federal election is held and ends on the 
     date of the election;
       ``(ii) voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or 
     generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an 
     election in which a candidate appears on the ballot 
     (regardless of whether a candidate for State or local office 
     also appears on the ballot); and
       ``(iii) a communication that refers to a clearly identified 
     candidate (regardless of whether a candidate for State or 
     local office is also mentioned or identified) and is made for 
     the purpose of influencing a Federal election (regardless of 
     whether the communication is express advocacy).
       ``(B) Excluded activity.--The term `Federal election 
     activity' does not include an amount expended or disbursed by 
     a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     for--
       ``(i) campaign activity conducted solely on behalf of a 
     clearly identified candidate for State or local office, if 
     the campaign activity is not a Federal election activity 
     described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(ii) a contribution to a candidate for State or local 
     office, if the contribution is not designated or used to pay 
     for a Federal election activity described in subparagraph 
     (A);
       ``(iii) the costs of a State, district, or local political 
     convention;
       ``(iv) the costs of grassroots campaign materials, 
     including buttons, bumper stickers, and yard signs, that name 
     or depict only a candidate for State or local office;
       ``(v) the non-Federal share of a State, district, or local 
     party committee's administrative and overhead expenses (but 
     not including the compensation in any month of an individual 
     who spends more than 20 percent of the individual's time on 
     Federal election activity) as determined by a regulation 
     promulgated by the Commission to determine the non-Federal 
     share of a State, district, or local party committee's 
     administrative and overhead expenses; and
       ``(vi) the cost of constructing or purchasing an office 
     facility or equipment for a State, district or local 
     committee.
       ``(c) Fundraising Costs.--An amount spent by a national, 
     State, district, or local committee of a political party, by 
     an entity that is established, financed, maintained, or 
     controlled by a national, State, district, or local committee 
     of a political party, or by an agent or officer of any such 
     committee or entity, to raise funds that are used, in whole 
     or in part, to pay the costs of a Federal election activity 
     shall be made from funds subject to the limitations, 
     prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(d) Tax-exempt Organizations.--A national, State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party (including 
     a national congressional campaign committee of a political 
     party), an entity that is directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained, or controlled by any such national, 
     State, district, or local committee or its agent, and an 
     officer or agent acting on behalf of any such party committee 
     or entity shall not solicit any funds for, or make or direct 
     any donations to, an organization that is described in 
     section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 
     exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code (or 
     has submitted an application to the Secretary of the Treasury 
     for determination of tax-exemption under such section).
       ``(e) Candidates.--
       ``(1) In general.--A candidate, individual holding Federal 
     office, or agent of a candidate or individual holding Federal 
     office shall not solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend 
     funds in connection with an election for Federal office, 
     including funds for any Federal election activity, unless the 
     funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and 
     reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) State law.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the 
     solicitation or receipt of funds by an individual who is a 
     candidate for a State or local office in connection with such 
     election for State or local office if the solicitation or 
     receipt of funds is permitted under State law for any 
     activity other than a Federal election activity.
       ``(B) Fundraising events.--Paragraph (1) does not apply in 
     the case of a candidate who attends, speaks, or is a featured 
     guest at a fundraising event sponsored by a State, district, 
     or local committee of a political party.''.

     SEC. 102. INCREASED CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR STATE COMMITTEES 
                   OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION 
                   LIMIT FOR INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) Contribution Limit for State Committees of Political 
     Parties.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C)--
       (A) by inserting ``(other than a committee described in 
     subparagraph (D))'' after ``committee''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) to a political committee established and maintained 
     by a State committee of a political party in any calendar 
     year that, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000''.
       (b) Aggregate Contribution Limit for Individual.--Section 
     315(a)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``$25,000'' and 
     inserting ``$30,000''.

     SEC. 103. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Reporting Requirements.--Section 304 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) (as amended by 
     section 213) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Political Committees.--
       ``(1) National and congressional political committees.--The 
     national committee of a political party, any national 
     congressional campaign committee of a political party, and 
     any subordinate committee of either, shall report all 
     receipts and disbursements during the reporting period.
       ``(2) Other political committees to which section 323 
     applies.--A political committee (not described in paragraph 
     (1)) to which section 323(b)(1) applies shall report all 
     receipts and disbursements made for activities described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B)(v) of section 323(b)(2).
       ``(3) Itemization.--If a political committee has receipts 
     or disbursements to which this subsection applies from any 
     person aggregating in excess of $200 for any calendar year, 
     the political committee shall separately itemize its 
     reporting for such person in the same manner as required in 
     paragraphs (3)(A), (5), and (6) of subsection (b).
       ``(4) Reporting periods.--Reports required to be filed 
     under this subsection shall be filed for the same time 
     periods required for political committees under subsection 
     (a).''.
       (b) Repeal of Building Fund Exception to the Definition of 
     Contribution.--Section 301(8)(B) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking clause (viii); and
       (2) by redesignating clauses (ix) through (xiv) as clauses 
     (viii) through (xiii), respectively.
           TITLE II--INDEPENDENT AND COORDINATED EXPENDITURES
               Subtitle A--Electioneering Communications

     SEC. 201. DISCLOSURE OF ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       Section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 434) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Additional Statements on Electioneering 
     Communications.--
       ``(1) Statement required.--Every person who makes a 
     disbursement for electioneering communications in an 
     aggregate amount in excess of $10,000 during any calendar 
     year shall, within 24 hours of each disclosure date, file 
     with the Commission a statement containing the information 
     described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Contents of statement.--Each statement required to be 
     filed under this subsection shall be made under penalty of 
     perjury and shall contain the following information:
       ``(A) The identification of the person making the 
     disbursement, of any entity sharing or exercising direction 
     or control over the activities of such person, and of the 
     custodian of the books and accounts of the person making the 
     disbursement.
       ``(B) The State of incorporation and the principal place of 
     business of the person making the disbursement.
       ``(C) The amount of each disbursement during the period 
     covered by the statement and the identification of the person 
     to whom the disbursement was made.
       ``(D) The elections to which the electioneering 
     communications pertain and the names (if known) of the 
     candidates identified or to be identified.
       ``(E) If the disbursements were paid out of a segregated 
     account to which only individuals could contribute, the names 
     and addresses of all contributors who contributed

[[Page 757]]

     an aggregate amount of $500 or more to that account during 
     the period beginning on the first day of the preceding 
     calendar year and ending on the disclosure date.
       ``(F) If the disbursements were paid out of funds not 
     described in subparagraph (E), the names and addresses of all 
     contributors who contributed an aggregate amount of $500 or 
     more to the organization or any related entity during the 
     period beginning on the first day of the preceding calendar 
     year and ending on the disclosure date.
       ``(G) Whether or not any electioneering communication is 
     made in coordination, cooperation, consultation, or concert 
     with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate or 
     any authorized committee, any political party or committee, 
     or any agent of the candidate, political party, or committee 
     and if so, the identification of any candidate, party, 
     committee, or agent involved.
       ``(3) Electioneering communication.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `electioneering communication' 
     means any broadcast from a television or radio broadcast 
     station which--
       ``(i) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal 
     office;
       ``(ii) is made (or scheduled to be made) within--

       ``(I) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election 
     for such Federal office; or
       ``(II) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or 
     a convention or caucus of a political party that has 
     authority to nominate a candidate, for such Federal office; 
     and

       ``(iii) is broadcast from a television or radio broadcast 
     station whose audience includes the electorate for such 
     election, convention, or caucus.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--Such term shall not include--
       ``(i) communications appearing in a news story, commentary, 
     or editorial distributed through the facilities of any 
     broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or 
     controlled by any political party, political committee, or 
     candidate; or
       ``(ii) communications which constitute expenditures or 
     independent expenditures under this Act.
       ``(4) Disclosure date.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `disclosure date' means--
       ``(A) the first date during any calendar year by which a 
     person has made disbursements for electioneering 
     communications aggregating in excess of $10,000; and
       ``(B) any other date during such calendar year by which a 
     person has made disbursements for electioneering 
     communications aggregating in excess of $10,000 since the 
     most recent disclosure date for such calendar year.
       ``(5) Contracts to disburse.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, a person shall be treated as having made a 
     disbursement if the person has contracted to make the 
     disbursement.
       ``(6) Coordination with other requirements.--Any 
     requirement to report under this subsection shall be in 
     addition to any other reporting requirement under this Act.''

     SEC. 202. COORDINATED COMMUNICATIONS AS CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 315(a)(7)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(7)(B)) is amended by inserting 
     after clause (ii) the following:
       ``(iii) if--

       ``(I) any person makes, or contracts to make, any payment 
     for any electioneering communication (within the meaning of 
     section 304(d)(3)); and
       ``(II) such payment is coordinated with a candidate or an 
     authorized committee of such candidate, a Federal, State, or 
     local political party or committee thereof, or an agent or 
     official of any such candidate, party, or committee;

     such payment or contracting shall be treated as a 
     contribution to such candidate and as an expenditure by such 
     candidate; and''.

     SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS 
                   FOR ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or for any applicable electioneering 
     communication'' before ``, but shall not include''.
       (b) Applicable Electioneering Communication.--Section 316 
     of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Rules Relating to Electioneering Communications.--
       ``(1) Applicable electioneering communication.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term `applicable electioneering 
     communication' means an electioneering communication (within 
     the meaning of section 304(d)(3)) which is made by--
       ``(A) any entity to which subsection (a) applies other than 
     a section 501(c)(4) organization; or
       ``(B) a section 501(c)(4) organization from amounts derived 
     from the conduct of a trade or business or from an entity 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Special operating rules.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the following rules shall apply:
       ``(A) An electioneering communication shall be treated as 
     made by an entity described in paragraph (1)(A) if--
       ``(i) the entity described in paragraph (1)(A) directly or 
     indirectly disburses any amount for any of the costs of the 
     communication; or
       ``(ii) any amount is disbursed for the communication by a 
     corporation or organization or a State or local political 
     party or committee thereof that receives anything of value 
     from the entity described in paragraph (1)(A), except that 
     this clause shall not apply to any communication the costs of 
     which are defrayed entirely out of a segregated account to 
     which only individuals can contribute.
       ``(B) A section 501(c)(4) organization that derives amounts 
     from business activities or from any entity described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall be considered to have paid for any 
     communication out of such amounts unless such organization 
     paid for the communication out of a segregated account to 
     which only individuals can contribute.
       ``(3) Definitions and rules.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) the term `section 501(c)(4) organization' means--
       ``(i) an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under 
     section 501(a) of such Code; or
       ``(ii) an organization which has submitted an application 
     to the Internal Revenue Service for determination of its 
     status as an organization described in clause (i); and
       ``(B) a person shall be treated as having made a 
     disbursement if the person has contracted to make the 
     disbursement.
       ``(4) Coordination with internal revenue code.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to authorize an 
     organization exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 from carrying out any activity 
     which is prohibited under such Code.''
          Subtitle B--Independent and Coordinated Expenditures

     SEC. 211. DEFINITION OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE.

       Section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 
     431) is amended by striking paragraph (17) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(17) Independent expenditure.--The term `independent 
     expenditure' means an expenditure by a person--
       ``(A) expressly advocating the election or defeat of a 
     clearly identified candidate; and
       ``(B) that is not provided in coordination with a candidate 
     or a candidate's agent or a person who is coordinating with a 
     candidate or a candidate's agent.''

     SEC. 212. CIVIL PENALTY.

       Section 309 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 437g) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (4)(A)--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``clause (ii)'' and 
     inserting ``clauses (ii) and (iii)''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) If the Commission determines by an affirmative vote 
     of 4 of its members that there is probable cause to believe 
     that a person has made a knowing and willful violation of 
     section 304(c), the Commission shall not enter into a 
     conciliation agreement under this paragraph and may institute 
     a civil action for relief under paragraph (6)(A).''; and
       (B) in paragraph (6)(B), by inserting ``(except an action 
     instituted in connection with a knowing and willful violation 
     of section 304(c))'' after ``subparagraph (A)''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Any person'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in subparagraph (D), any 
     person''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) In the case of a knowing and willful violation of 
     section 304(c) that involves the reporting of an independent 
     expenditure, the violation shall not be subject to this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 213. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN INDEPENDENT 
                   EXPENDITURES.

       Section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 434) (as amended by section 201) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking the undesignated 
     matter after subparagraph (C); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Time for Reporting Certain Expenditures.--
       ``(1) Expenditures aggregating $1,000.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a political 
     committee) that makes or contracts to make independent 
     expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more after the 20th day, 
     but more than 24 hours, before the date of an election shall 
     file a report describing the expenditures within 24 hours 
     after that amount of independent expenditures has been made.
       ``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a report 
     under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an additional 
     report within 24 hours after each time the person makes or 
     contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating an 
     additional $1,000 with respect to the same election as that 
     to which the initial report relates.
       ``(2) Expenditures aggregating $10,000.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a political 
     committee) that makes or contracts to make independent 
     expenditures aggregating $10,000 or more at any time up to 
     and including the 20th day before the date of an election 
     shall file a report describing the expenditures within 48 
     hours after that amount of independent expenditures has been 
     made.

[[Page 758]]

       ``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a report 
     under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an additional 
     report within 48 hours after each time the person makes or 
     contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating an 
     additional $10,000 with respect to the same election as that 
     to which the initial report relates.
       ``(3) Place of filing; contents.--A report under this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) shall be filed with the Commission; and
       ``(B) shall contain the information required by subsection 
     (b)(6)(B)(iii), including the name of each candidate whom an 
     expenditure is intended to support or oppose.''.

     SEC. 214. INDEPENDENT VERSUS COORDINATED EXPENDITURES BY 
                   PARTY.

       Section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting 
     ``, (3), and (4)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Independent versus coordinated expenditures by 
     party.--
       ``(A) In general.--On or after the date on which a 
     political party nominates a candidate, a committee of the 
     political party shall not make both expenditures under this 
     subsection and independent expenditures (as defined in 
     section 301(17)) with respect to the candidate during the 
     election cycle.
       ``(B) Certification.--Before making a coordinated 
     expenditure under this subsection with respect to a 
     candidate, a committee of a political party shall file with 
     the Commission a certification, signed by the treasurer of 
     the committee, that the committee, on or after the date 
     described in subparagraph (A), has not and shall not make any 
     independent expenditure with respect to the candidate during 
     the same election cycle.
       ``(C) Application.--For purposes of this paragraph, all 
     political committees established and maintained by a national 
     political party (including all congressional campaign 
     committees) and all political committees established and 
     maintained by a State political party (including any 
     subordinate committee of a State committee) shall be 
     considered to be a single political committee.
       ``(D) Transfers.--A committee of a political party that 
     submits a certification under subparagraph (B) with respect 
     to a candidate shall not, during an election cycle, transfer 
     any funds to, assign authority to make coordinated 
     expenditures under this subsection to, or receive a transfer 
     of funds from, a committee of the political party that has 
     made or intends to make an independent expenditure with 
     respect to the candidate.''.

     SEC. 215. COORDINATION WITH CANDIDATES.

       (a) Definition of Coordination With Candidates.--
       (1) Section 301(8).--Section 301(8) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
       (ii) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) coordinated activity (as defined in subparagraph 
     (C)).''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) `Coordinated activity' means anything of value 
     provided by a person in coordination with a candidate, an 
     agent of the candidate, or the political party of the 
     candidate or its agent for the purpose of influencing a 
     Federal election (regardless of whether the value being 
     provided is a communication that is express advocacy) in 
     which such candidate seeks nomination or election to Federal 
     office, and includes any of the following:
       ``(i) A payment made by a person in cooperation, 
     consultation, or concert with, at the request or suggestion 
     of, or pursuant to any general or particular understanding 
     with a candidate, the candidate's authorized committee, the 
     political party of the candidate, or an agent acting on 
     behalf of a candidate, authorized committee, or the political 
     party of the candidate.
       ``(ii) A payment made by a person for the production, 
     dissemination, distribution, or republication, in whole or in 
     part, of any broadcast or any written, graphic, or other form 
     of campaign material prepared by a candidate, a candidate's 
     authorized committee, or an agent of a candidate or 
     authorized committee (not including a communication described 
     in paragraph (9)(B)(i) or a communication that expressly 
     advocates the candidate's defeat).
       ``(iii) A payment made by a person based on information 
     about a candidate's plans, projects, or needs provided to the 
     person making the payment by the candidate or the candidate's 
     agent who provides the information with the intent that the 
     payment be made.
       ``(iv) A payment made by a person if, in the same election 
     cycle in which the payment is made, the person making the 
     payment is serving or has served as a member, employee, 
     fundraiser, or agent of the candidate's authorized committee 
     in an executive or policymaking position.
       ``(v) A payment made by a person if the person making the 
     payment has served in any formal policy making or advisory 
     position with the candidate's campaign or has participated in 
     formal strategic or formal policymaking discussions (other 
     than any discussion treated as a lobbying contact under the 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 in the case of a candidate 
     holding Federal office or as a similar lobbying activity in 
     the case of a candidate holding State or other elective 
     office) with the candidate's campaign relating to the 
     candidate's pursuit of nomination for election, or election, 
     to Federal office, in the same election cycle as the election 
     cycle in which the payment is made.
       ``(vi) A payment made by a person if, in the same election 
     cycle, the person making the payment retains the professional 
     services of any person that has provided or is providing 
     campaign-related services in the same election cycle to a 
     candidate (including services provided through a political 
     committee of the candidate's political party) in connection 
     with the candidate's pursuit of nomination for election, or 
     election, to Federal office, including services relating to 
     the candidate's decision to seek Federal office, and the 
     person retained is retained to work on activities relating to 
     that candidate's campaign.
       ``(vii) A payment made by a person who has directly 
     participated in fundraising activities with the candidate or 
     in the solicitation or receipt of contributions on behalf of 
     the candidate.
       ``(viii) A payment made by a person who has communicated 
     with the candidate or an agent of the candidate (including a 
     communication through a political committee of the 
     candidate's political party) after the declaration of 
     candidacy (including a pollster, media consultant, vendor, 
     advisor, or staff member acting on behalf of the candidate), 
     about advertising message, allocation of resources, 
     fundraising, or other campaign matters related to the 
     candidate's campaign, including campaign operations, 
     staffing, tactics, or strategy.
       ``(ix) The provision of in-kind professional services or 
     polling data (including services or data provided through a 
     political committee of the candidate's political party) to 
     the candidate or candidate's agent.
       ``(x) A payment made by a person who has engaged in a 
     coordinated activity with a candidate described in clauses 
     (i) through (ix) for a communication that clearly refers to 
     the candidate or the candidate's opponent and is for the 
     purpose of influencing that candidates's election (regardless 
     of whether the communication is express advocacy).
       ``(D) For purposes of subparagraph (C), the term 
     `professional services' means polling, media advice, 
     fundraising, campaign research or direct mail (except for 
     mailhouse services solely for the distribution of voter 
     guides as defined in section 431(20)(B)) services in support 
     of a candidate's pursuit of nomination for election, or 
     election, to Federal office.
       ``(E) For purposes of subparagraph (C), all political 
     committees established and maintained by a national political 
     party (including all congressional campaign committees) and 
     all political committees established and maintained by a 
     State political party (including any subordinate committee of 
     a State committee) shall be considered to be a single 
     political committee.''.
       (2) Section 315(a)(7).--Section 315(a)(7) (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(a)(7)) is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) a coordinated activity, as described in section 
     301(8)(C), shall be considered to be a contribution to the 
     candidate, and in the case of a limitation on expenditures, 
     shall be treated as an expenditure by the candidate.
       (b) Meaning of Contribution or Expenditure for the Purposes 
     of Section 316.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``shall include'' and inserting ``includes a 
     contribution or expenditure, as those terms are defined in 
     section 301, and also includes.''.
                         TITLE III--DISCLOSURE

     SEC. 301. FILING OF REPORTS USING COMPUTERS AND FACSIMILE 
                   MACHINES; FILING BY SENATE CANDIDATES WITH 
                   COMMISSION.

       (a) Use of Computer and Facsimile Machine.--Section 302(a) 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     434(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (11) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(11)(A) The Commission shall promulgate a regulation 
     under which a person required to file a designation, 
     statement, or report under this Act--
       ``(i) is required to maintain and file a designation, 
     statement, or report for any calendar year in electronic form 
     accessible by computers if the person has, or has reason to 
     expect to have, aggregate contributions or expenditures in 
     excess of a threshold amount determined by the Commission; 
     and
       ``(ii) may maintain and file a designation, statement, or 
     report in electronic form or an alternative form, including 
     the use of a facsimile machine, if not required to do so 
     under the regulation promulgated under clause (i).
       ``(B) The Commission shall make a designation, statement, 
     report, or notification that is filed electronically with the 
     Commission accessible to the public on the Internet not later 
     than 24 hours after the designation, statement, report, or 
     notification is received by the Commission.
       ``(C) In promulgating a regulation under this paragraph, 
     the Commission shall provide methods (other than requiring a 
     signature on the document being filed) for

[[Page 759]]

     verifying designations, statements, and reports covered by 
     the regulation. Any document verified under any of the 
     methods shall be treated for all purposes (including 
     penalties for perjury) in the same manner as a document 
     verified by signature.''.
       (b) Senate Candidates File With Commission.--Title III of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et 
     seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 302, by striking subsection (g) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(g) Filing With the Commission.--All designations, 
     statements, and reports required to be filed under this Act 
     shall be filed with the Commission.''; and
       (2) in section 304--
       (A) in subsection (a)(6)(A), by striking ``the Secretary 
     or''; and
       (B) in the matter following subsection (c)(2), by striking 
     ``the Secretary or''.

     SEC. 302. PROHIBITION OF DEPOSIT OF CONTRIBUTIONS WITH 
                   INCOMPLETE CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION.

       Section 302 of Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 432) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Deposit of Contributions.--The treasurer of a 
     candidate's authorized committee shall not deposit, except in 
     an escrow account, or otherwise negotiate a contribution from 
     a person who makes an aggregate amount of contributions in 
     excess of $200 during a calendar year unless the treasurer 
     verifies that the information required by this section with 
     respect to the contributor is complete.''.

     SEC. 303. AUDITS.

       (a) Random Audits.--Section 311(b) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 438(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1) In general.--'' before ``The 
     Commission''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Random audits.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     Commission may conduct random audits and investigations to 
     ensure voluntary compliance with this Act. The selection of 
     any candidate for a random audit or investigation shall be 
     based on criteria adopted by a vote of at least 4 members of 
     the Commission.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The Commission shall not conduct an 
     audit or investigation of a candidate's authorized committee 
     under subparagraph (A) until the candidate is no longer a 
     candidate for the office sought by the candidate in an 
     election cycle.
       ``(C) Applicability.--This paragraph does not apply to an 
     authorized committee of a candidate for President or Vice 
     President subject to audit under section 9007 or 9038 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
       (b) Extension of Period During Which Campaign Audits May Be 
     Begun.--Section 311(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 438(b)) is amended by striking ``6 months'' 
     and inserting ``12 months''.

     SEC. 304. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF $50 OR 
                   MORE.

       Section 304(b)(3)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     at 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(b)(3)(A) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$200'' and inserting ``$50''; and
       (2) by striking the semicolon and inserting ``, except that 
     in the case of a person who makes contributions aggregating 
     at least $50 but not more than $200 during the calendar year, 
     the identification need include only the name and address of 
     the person;''.

     SEC. 305. USE OF CANDIDATES' NAMES.

       Section 302(e) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 432(e)) is amended by striking paragraph (4) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(4)(A) The name of each authorized committee shall 
     include the name of the candidate who authorized the 
     committee under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) A political committee that is not an authorized 
     committee shall not--
       ``(i) include the name of any candidate in its name; or
       ``(ii) except in the case of a national, State, or local 
     party committee, use the name of any candidate in any 
     activity on behalf of the committee in such a context as to 
     suggest that the committee is an authorized committee of the 
     candidate or that the use of the candidate's name has been 
     authorized by the candidate.''.

     SEC. 306. PROHIBITION OF FALSE REPRESENTATION TO SOLICIT 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 322 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441h) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``Sec. 322.'' the following: ``(a) 
     In General.--''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Solicitation of Contributions.--No person shall 
     solicit contributions by falsely representing himself or 
     herself as a candidate or as a representative of a candidate, 
     a political committee, or a political party.''.

     SEC. 307. SOFT MONEY OF PERSONS OTHER THAN POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 304 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) (as amended by section 
     103(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Disbursements of Persons Other Than Political 
     Parties.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person, other than a political 
     committee of a political party or a person described in 
     section 501(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that 
     makes an aggregate amount of disbursements in excess of 
     $50,000 during a calendar year for activities described in 
     paragraph (2) shall file a statement with the Commission--
       ``(A) on a monthly basis as described in subsection 
     (a)(4)(B); or
       ``(B) in the case of disbursements that are made within 20 
     days of an election, within 24 hours after the disbursements 
     are made.
       ``(2) Activity.--An activity is described in this paragraph 
     if it is--
       ``(A) Federal election activity;
       ``(B) an activity described in section 316(b)(2)(A) that 
     expresses support for or opposition to a candidate for 
     Federal office or a political party; or
       ``(C) an activity described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of 
     section 316(b)(2).
       ``(3) Applicability.--This subsection does not apply to--
       ``(A) a candidate or a candidate's authorized committees; 
     or
       ``(B) an independent expenditure.
       ``(4) Contents.--A statement under this section shall 
     contain such information about the disbursements made during 
     the reporting period as the Commission shall prescribe, 
     including--
       ``(A) the aggregate amount of disbursements made;
       ``(B) the name and address of the person or entity to whom 
     a disbursement is made in an aggregate amount in excess of 
     $200;
       ``(C) the date made, amount, and purpose of the 
     disbursement; and
       ``(D) if applicable, whether the disbursement was in 
     support of, or in opposition to, a candidate or a political 
     party, and the name of the candidate or the political 
     party.''.
       (b) Definition of Generic Campaign Activity.--Section 301 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) Generic campaign activity.--The term `generic 
     campaign activity' means an activity that promotes a 
     political party and does not promote a candidate or non-
     Federal candidate.''.

     SEC. 308. CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING.

       Section 318 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441d) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``Whenever a 
     political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of 
     financing any communication through any broadcasting station, 
     newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, 
     or any other type of general public political advertising, or 
     whenever'';
       (ii) by striking ``an expenditure'' and inserting ``a 
     disbursement''; and
       (iii) by striking ``direct''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and permanent street 
     address'' after ``name''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Any printed communication described in subsection (a) 
     shall--
       ``(1) be of sufficient type size to be clearly readable by 
     the recipient of the communication;
       ``(2) be contained in a printed box set apart from the 
     other contents of the communication; and
       ``(3) be printed with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement.
       ``(d)(1) Any broadcast or cablecast communication described 
     in paragraphs (1) or (2) of subsection (a) shall include, in 
     addition to the requirements of that paragraph, an audio 
     statement by the candidate that identifies the candidate and 
     states that the candidate has approved the communication.
       ``(2) If a broadcast or cablecast communication described 
     in paragraph (1) is broadcast or cablecast by means of 
     television, the communication shall include, in addition to 
     the audio statement under paragraph (1), a written statement 
     that--
       ``(A) appears at the end of the communication in a clearly 
     readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement, for a 
     period of at least 4 seconds; and
       ``(B) is accompanied by a clearly identifiable photographic 
     or similar image of the candidate.
       ``(e) Any broadcast or cablecast communication described in 
     paragraph (3) of subsection (a) shall include, in addition to 
     the requirements of that paragraph, in a clearly spoken 
     manner, the following statement: `________ is responsible for 
     the content of this advertisement.' (with the blank to be 
     filled in with the name of the political committee or other 
     person paying for the communication and the name of any 
     connected organization of the payor). If broadcast or 
     cablecast by means of television, the statement shall also 
     appear in a clearly readable manner with a reasonable degree 
     of color contrast between the background and the printed 
     statement, for a period of at least 4 seconds.''.
                    TITLE IV--PERSONAL WEALTH OPTION

     SEC. 401. VOLUNTARY PERSONAL FUNDS EXPENDITURE LIMIT.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) (as amended by section 101) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 324. VOLUNTARY PERSONAL FUNDS EXPENDITURE LIMIT.

       ``(a) Eligible Senate Candidate.--

[[Page 760]]

       ``(1) Primary election.--
       ``(A) Declaration.--A candidate for the office of Senator 
     is an eligible Senate candidate with respect to a primary 
     election if the candidate files with the Commission a 
     declaration that the candidate and the candidate's authorized 
     committees will not exceed the personal funds expenditure 
     limit.
       ``(B) Time to file.--The declaration under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be filed not later than the date on which the candidate 
     files with the appropriate State officer as a candidate for 
     the primary election.
       ``(2) General election.--
       ``(A) Declaration.--A candidate for the office of Senator 
     is an eligible Senate candidate with respect to a general 
     election if the candidate files with the Commission--
       ``(i) a declaration under penalty of perjury, with 
     supporting documentation as required by the Commission, that 
     the candidate and the candidate's authorized committees did 
     not exceed the personal funds expenditure limit in connection 
     with the primary election; and
       ``(ii) a declaration that the candidate and the candidate's 
     authorized committees will not exceed the personal funds 
     expenditure limit in connection with the general election.
       ``(B) Time to file.--The declaration under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be filed not later than 7 days after the earlier of--
       ``(i) the date on which the candidate qualifies for the 
     general election ballot under State law; or
       ``(ii) if under State law, a primary or run-off election to 
     qualify for the general election ballot occurs after 
     September 1, the date on which the candidate wins the primary 
     or runoff election.
       ``(b) Personal Funds Expenditure Limit.--
       ``(1) In general.--The aggregate amount of expenditures 
     that may be made in connection with an election by an 
     eligible Senate candidate or the candidate's authorized 
     committees from the sources described in paragraph (2) shall 
     not exceed $50,000.
       ``(2) Sources.--A source is described in this paragraph if 
     the source is--
       ``(A) personal funds of the candidate and members of the 
     candidate's immediate family; or
       ``(B) proceeds of indebtedness incurred by the candidate or 
     a member of the candidate's immediate family.
       ``(c) Certification by the Commission.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall determine whether a 
     candidate has met the requirements of this section and, based 
     on the determination, issue a certification stating whether 
     the candidate is an eligible Senate candidate.
       ``(2) Time for certification.--Not later than 7 business 
     days after a candidate files a declaration under paragraph 
     (1) or (2) of subsection (a), the Commission shall certify 
     whether the candidate is an eligible Senate candidate.
       ``(3) Revocation.--The Commission shall revoke a 
     certification under paragraph (1), based on information 
     submitted in such form and manner as the Commission may 
     require or on information that comes to the Commission by 
     other means, if the Commission determines that a candidate 
     violates the personal funds expenditure limit.
       ``(4) Determinations by Commission.--A determination made 
     by the Commission under this subsection shall be final, 
     except to the extent that the determination is subject to 
     examination and audit by the Commission and to judicial 
     review.
       ``(d) Penalty.--If the Commission revokes the certification 
     of an eligible Senate candidate--
       ``(1) the Commission shall notify the candidate of the 
     revocation; and
       ``(2) the candidate and a candidate's authorized committees 
     shall pay to the Commission an amount equal to the amount of 
     expenditures made by a national committee of a political 
     party or a State committee of a political party in connection 
     with the general election campaign of the candidate under 
     section 315(d).''.

     SEC. 402. POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE COORDINATED EXPENDITURES.

       Section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) (as amended by section 214) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) This subsection does not apply to expenditures made 
     in connection with the general election campaign of a 
     candidate for the Senate who is not an eligible Senate 
     candidate (as described in section 324(a)).''.
                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. CODIFICATION OF BECK DECISION.

       Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     158) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h) Nonunion Member Payments to Labor Organization.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be an unfair labor practice for 
     any labor organization which receives a payment from an 
     employee pursuant to an agreement that requires employees who 
     are not members of the organization to make payments to such 
     organization in lieu of organization dues or fees not to 
     establish and implement the objection procedure described in 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Objection procedure.--The objection procedure 
     required under paragraph (1) shall meet the following 
     requirements:
       ``(A) The labor organization shall annually provide to 
     employees who are covered by such agreement but are not 
     members of the organization--
       ``(i) reasonable personal notice of the objection 
     procedure, the employees eligible to invoke the procedure, 
     and the time, place, and manner for filing an objection; and
       ``(ii) reasonable opportunity to file an objection to 
     paying for organization expenditures supporting political 
     activities unrelated to collective bargaining, including but 
     not limited to the opportunity to file such objection by 
     mail.
       ``(B) If an employee who is not a member of the labor 
     organization files an objection under the procedure in 
     subparagraph (A), such organization shall--
       ``(i) reduce the payments in lieu of organization dues or 
     fees by such employee by an amount which reasonably reflects 
     the ratio that the organization's expenditures supporting 
     political activities unrelated to collective bargaining bears 
     to such organization's total expenditures; and
       ``(ii) provide such employee with a reasonable explanation 
     of the organization's calculation of such reduction, 
     including calculating the amount of organization expenditures 
     supporting political activities unrelated to collective 
     bargaining.
       ``(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term 
     `expenditures supporting political activities unrelated to 
     collective bargaining' means expenditures in connection with 
     a Federal, State, or local election or in connection with 
     efforts to influence legislation unrelated to collective 
     bargaining.''.

     SEC. 502. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by striking section 313 and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 313. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       ``(a) Permitted Uses.--A contribution accepted by a 
     candidate, and any other amount received by an individual as 
     support for activities of the individual as a holder of 
     Federal office, may be used by the candidate or individual--
       ``(1) for expenditures in connection with the campaign for 
     Federal office of the candidate or individual;
       ``(2) for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in 
     connection with duties of the individual as a holder of 
     Federal office;
       ``(3) for contributions to an organization described in 
     section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(4) for transfers to a national, State, or local 
     committee of a political party.
       ``(b) Prohibited Use.--
       ``(1) In general.--A contribution or amount described in 
     subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to 
     personal use.
       ``(2) Conversion.--For the purposes of paragraph (1), a 
     contribution or amount shall be considered to be converted to 
     personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill 
     any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would 
     exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or 
     individual's duties as a holder of Federal officeholder, 
     including--
       ``(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
       ``(B) a clothing purchase;
       ``(C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;
       ``(D) a country club membership;
       ``(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;
       ``(F) a household food item;
       ``(G) a tuition payment;
       ``(H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or 
     other form of entertainment not associated with an election 
     campaign; and
       ``(I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or 
     recreational facility.''.

     SEC. 503. LIMIT ON CONGRESSIONAL USE OF THE FRANKING 
                   PRIVILEGE.

       Section 3210(a)(6) of title 39, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) A Member of Congress shall not mail any mass mailing 
     as franked mail during a year in which there will be an 
     election for the seat held by the Member during the period 
     between January 1 of that year and the date of the general 
     election for that Office, unless the Member has made a public 
     announcement that the Member will not be a candidate for 
     reelection to that year or for election to any other Federal 
     office.''.

     SEC. 504. PROHIBITION OF FUNDRAISING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY.

       Section 607 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person to 
     solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of 
     value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election 
     from a person who is located in a room or building occupied 
     in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee 
     of the United States. An individual who is an officer or

[[Page 761]]

     employee of the Federal Government, including the President, 
     Vice President, and Members of Congress, shall not solicit a 
     donation of money or other thing of value in connection with 
     a Federal, State, or local election, while in any room or 
     building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an 
     officer or employee of the United States, from any person.
       ``(2) Penalty.--A person who violates this section shall be 
     fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned more than 3 years, or 
     both.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``or Executive Office 
     of the President'' after ``Congress'' .

     SEC. 505. PENALTIES FOR KNOWING AND WILLFUL VIOLATIONS.

       (a) Increased Penalties.--Section 309(a) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (5)(A), (6)(A), and (6)(B), by striking 
     ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$10,000''; and
       (2) in paragraphs (5)(B) and (6)(C), by striking ``$10,000 
     or an amount equal to 200 percent'' and inserting ``$20,000 
     or an amount equal to 300 percent''.
       (b) Equitable Remedies.--Section 309(a)(5)(A) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5)) 
     is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting 
     ``, and may include equitable remedies or penalties, 
     including disgorgement of funds to the Treasury or community 
     service requirements (including requirements to participate 
     in public education programs).''.
       (c) Automatic Penalty for Late Filing.--Section 309(a) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) Penalty for late filing.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Mandatory monetary penalties.--The Commission shall 
     establish a schedule of mandatory monetary penalties that 
     shall be imposed by the Commission for failure to meet a time 
     requirement for filing under section 304.
       ``(ii) Required filing.--In addition to imposing a penalty, 
     the Commission may require a report that has not been filed 
     within the time requirements of section 304 to be filed by a 
     specific date.
       ``(iii) Procedure.--A penalty or filing requirement imposed 
     under this paragraph shall not be subject to paragraph (1), 
     (2), (3), (4), (5), or (12).
       ``(B) Filing an exception.--
       ``(i) Time to file.--A political committee shall have 30 
     days after the imposition of a penalty or filing requirement 
     by the Commission under this paragraph in which to file an 
     exception with the Commission.
       ``(ii) Time for commission to rule.--Within 30 days after 
     receiving an exception, the Commission shall make a 
     determination that is a final agency action subject to 
     exclusive review by the United States Court of Appeals for 
     the District of Columbia Circuit under section 706 of title 
     5, United States Code, upon petition filed in that court by 
     the political committee or treasurer that is the subject of 
     the agency action, if the petition is filed within 30 days 
     after the date of the Commission action for which review is 
     sought.'';
       (2) in paragraph (5)(D)--
       (A) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``In any case in which a penalty or filing requirement 
     imposed on a political committee or treasurer under paragraph 
     (13) has not been satisfied, the Commission may institute a 
     civil action for enforcement under paragraph (6)(A).''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end of the last 
     sentence the following: ``or has failed to pay a penalty or 
     meet a filing requirement imposed under paragraph (13)''; and
       (3) in paragraph (6)(A), by striking ``paragraph (4)(A)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraph (4)(A) or (13)''.

     SEC. 506. STRENGTHENING FOREIGN MONEY BAN.

       Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441e) is amended--
       (1) by striking the heading and inserting the following: 
     ``contributions and donations by foreign nationals''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for--
       ``(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make--
       ``(A) a donation of money or other thing of value, or to 
     promise expressly or impliedly to make a donation, in 
     connection with a Federal, State, or local election; or
       ``(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a 
     political party; or
       ``(2) for a person to solicit, accept, or receive such 
     contribution or donation from a foreign national.''.

     SEC. 507. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) (as amended by section 401) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 326. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS.

       An individual who is 17 years old or younger shall not make 
     a contribution to a candidate or a contribution or donation 
     to a committee of a political party.''.

     SEC. 508. EXPEDITED PROCEDURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 309(a) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) (as amended by 
     section 505(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(14)(A) If the complaint in a proceeding was filed within 
     60 days preceding the date of a general election, the 
     Commission may take action described in this subparagraph.
       ``(B) If the Commission determines, on the basis of facts 
     alleged in the complaint and other facts available to the 
     Commission, that there is clear and convincing evidence that 
     a violation of this Act has occurred, is occurring, or is 
     about to occur, the Commission may order expedited 
     proceedings, shortening the time periods for proceedings 
     under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as necessary to allow 
     the matter to be resolved in sufficient time before the 
     election to avoid harm or prejudice to the interests of the 
     parties.
       ``(C) If the Commission determines, on the basis of facts 
     alleged in the complaint and other facts available to the 
     Commission, that the complaint is clearly without merit, the 
     Commission may--
       ``(i) order expedited proceedings, shortening the time 
     periods for proceedings under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and 
     (4) as necessary to allow the matter to be resolved in 
     sufficient time before the election to avoid harm or 
     prejudice to the interests of the parties; or
       ``(ii) if the Commission determines that there is 
     insufficient time to conduct proceedings before the election, 
     summarily dismiss the complaint.''.
       (b) Referral to Attorney General.--Section 309(a)(5) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5)) 
     is amended by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) The Commission may at any time, by an affirmative 
     vote of at least 4 of its members, refer a possible violation 
     of this Act or chapter 95 or 96 of title 26, United States 
     Code, to the Attorney General of the United States, without 
     regard to any limitation set forth in this section.''.

     SEC. 509. INITIATION OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING.

       Section 309(a)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``reason to 
     believe that'' and inserting ``reason to investigate 
     whether''.
 TITLE VI--SEVERABILITY; CONSTITUTIONALITY; EFFECTIVE DATE; REGULATIONS

     SEC. 601. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act, 
     or the application of a provision or amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions and amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.

     SEC. 602. REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.

       An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the 
     United States from any final judgment, decree, or order 
     issued by any court ruling on the constitutionality of any 
     provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act.

     SEC. 603. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act take effect on the date that is 
     60 days after the date of enactment of this Act or January 1, 
     2000, whichever occurs first.

     SEC. 604. REGULATIONS.

       The Federal Election Commission shall prescribe any 
     regulations required to carry out this Act and the amendments 
     made by this Act not later than 270 days after the effective 
     date of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 27. A bill to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 to extend and clarify the pay-as-you-go 
requirements regarding the Social Security trust funds; to the 
Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions 
that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to 
report or be discharged.


         THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend, the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), in offering the Social 
Security Trust Fund Protection Act of 1999, legislation extending our 
current PAYGO budget rules, and clarifying that Congress may not use 
so-called budget surpluses to pay for tax cuts or new spending when 
those surpluses are really Social Security Trust Fund balances.
  Mr. President, as I noted last year when I first offered this 
measure, it gives me particular pleasure to join with Senator Hollings 
in introducing this bill.
  Both in this body and in the Budget Committee, he has been a leading 
voice for fiscal prudence.

[[Page 762]]

  While popular in theory, fiscal prudence is often less attractive in 
practice, but Senator Hollings has taken tough positions, even when 
those positions may not have been politically attractive.
  That is the true measure of commitment to honest and prudent 
budgeting, and I am proud to join him in this effort today.
  Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today ensures that the 
PAYGO rule will continue to require that any new entitlement spending 
or tax cuts be fully paid for.
  Our bill clarifies current PAYGO procedures to remove any doubt that 
tax cuts or increased spending must continue to be offset.
  It extends the PAYGO rule, which currently covers legislation enacted 
through 2002, until we are no longer using Social Security to mask the 
deficit.
  Under our bill, Congress could not use a so-called surplus until it 
is real, namely when the budget runs a surplus without using Social 
Security Trust Funds.
  Mr. President, we have entered an era of transition with regard to 
the Federal budget.
  For decades, Congress and the White House ran up huge deficits, 
producing a mounting national debt.
  Over the past few years, we have worked to bring down those deficits.
  Those efforts have been successful, in large part, and we are now 
witnessing something Congress has not seen in 30 years--actually 
achieving balance in the so-called unified budget.
  But, Mr. President, while achieving a balanced unified budget is a 
significant and encouraging accomplishment, it is not a final victory.
  We still have a way to go.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, some do want to declare a final 
victory, and use any projected unified budget surpluses for increased 
spending or tax cuts.
  But as many have noted on this floor, projected surpluses based on a 
so-called unified budget are not real.
  In fact, far from surpluses, what we really have are continuing on-
budget deficits, masked by Social Security revenues.
  The distinction is absolutely fundamental.
  As I have noted before, the very word ``surplus'' connotes some extra 
amount or bonus in addition to the funds we need to meet our expenses 
and obligations.
  One dictionary defines ``surplus'' as: ``something more than or in 
excess of what is needed or required.''
  Mr. President, the projected unified budget surplus is not ``more 
than or in excess of what is needed or required.''
  Those funds are needed.
  They were raised by the Social Security system, specifically in 
anticipation of commitments to future Social Security beneficiaries.
  Mr. President, let me just note that the problem of using Social 
Security trust fund balances to mask the real budget deficit is not a 
partisan issue.
  Both political parties have used this accounting gimmick--here in 
Congress and in the White House.
  But it must stop, and this legislation can help us stop it.
  Mr. President, budget rules cannot by themselves reduce the deficit, 
but they can protect what has been achieved and guard against further 
abuse.
  The PAYGO rule governing entitlements and taxes, along with the 
discretionary spending caps, have kept Congress disciplined and on 
track.
  Mr. President, earlier I said we are in an era of budget transition.
  With some hard work this year, we can leave the years of unified 
budget deficits behind us.
  And with some more work, we can move toward real budget balances 
without using Social Security revenues.
  Mr. President, that must be our highest priority.
  If Congress does not begin to rid itself of its addiction to Social 
Security trust fund balances, we will put the benefits of future 
retirees at serious risk.
  Fortunately, Mr. President, we are within reach of the goal of 
balancing the budget without using the Social Security trust funds.
  If we stay the course, and continue the tough, sometimes unpopular 
work of reducing the deficit, we can give this Nation an honest budget, 
one that is truly balanced.
  And the time to act is now.
  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. 27

       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 ``Social Security Trust Fund 
     Protection Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       (a) Extension.--
       (1) In general.--Section 252(a) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking 
     ``enacted before October 1, 2002,'' both places it appears.
       (2) Points of order.--Section 275(b) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by 
     striking the last sentence.
       (b) Modification.--
       (1) Definition.--Section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(20) The term `budget increase' means, for purposes of 
     section 252, an increase in direct spending outlays or a 
     decrease in receipts relative to the baseline, and the term 
     `budget decrease' means, for purposes of section 252, a 
     decrease in direct spending outlays or an increase in 
     receipts relative to the baseline.''.
       (2) Purpose.--Section 252(a) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``increases the deficit'' and inserting 
     ``results in a net budget increase''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period the following: ``except 
     to the extent that the total budget surplus exceeds the 
     social security surplus''.
       (3) Timing.--Section 252(b)(1) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
       (A) in its side heading by inserting ``and amount'' after 
     ``Timing''; and
       (B) by striking ``net deficit increase'' and inserting 
     ``net budget increase'' and by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``The requirement of the preceding 
     sentence shall apply for any fiscal year only to the extent 
     that the surplus, if any, before the sequestration required 
     by this section in the total budget (which, notwithstanding 
     section 710 of the Social Security Act, includes both on-
     budget and off-budget Government accounts) is less than the 
     combined surplus for that year in the Federal Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability 
     Insurance Trust Fund.''.
       (4) Calculating.--Section 252(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
       (A) in its side heading by striking ``deficit increase'' 
     and inserting ``net budget increase'';
       (B) by striking ``deficit increase or decrease'' the first 
     place it appears and inserting ``any net budget increase''; 
     and
       (C) by striking ``any net deficit increase or decrease in 
     the current year resulting from''.
       (5) Eliminating.--The side heading of section 252(c) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is 
     amended by striking ``Deficit Increase'' and inserting ``Net 
     Budget Increase''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Bennett):
  S. 28. A bill to authorize an interpretive center and related visitor 
facilities within the Four Corners Monument Tribal Park, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


             four corners monument interpretive center act

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to the introduce the Four 
Corners Monument Interpretive Center Act. The Four Corners is the only 
location in our nation where the boundaries of four states meet at one 
point.
  Each year more than a quarter of a million visitors from around the 
world brave heat and discomfort to visit the Four Corners. This 
legislation will provide basic amenities to these travelers and provide 
an important economic opportunity for the Indian Nations who share the 
Four Corners area.
  The Four Corners area is unique for reasons other than the makeup of 
its political boundaries. This location was home to some of the 
earliest Americans, the Anasazi people. Little known

[[Page 763]]

about this ancient people, but the Four Corners area contains many of 
the clues left behind to help us learn about their society. This 
heritage has created an area of rich historical, archeological, and 
cultural significance as well as natural beauty.
  In more recent history, in 1949, the Governors of Arizona, Colorado, 
New Mexico, and Utah met at the Four Corners Monument for a historic 
meeting. Each Governor sat in his state's corner and ate a picnic lunch 
together. The governors pledged to meet every so often to reaffirm 
their commitment to working together for the good of the four states 
and for the Four Corners region. This year marks the 50th anniversary 
of that historic meeting. I think we should reaffirm their commitment 
to cooperation by establishing this center that will promote 
opportunity in this region.
  This legislation is important for the Navajo Nation and the Mountain 
Utes who share control of the existing Four Corners Monument. And, we 
must be clear what we mean by ``monument.'' In contrast to the 1.7 
million acre Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument recently 
declared by President Clinton, the ``monument'' that marks the spot at 
Four Corners is a simple concrete disk containing the four states' 
seals.
  Native Americans have set up small open air stalls around the 
monument to exhibit and sell their native crafts. But, there is no 
electricity, no running water, no permanent restroom facilities, and no 
phone service in the area.
  The interpretive center provided by this legislation would not only 
assist these Native Americans economically, but it would provide a 
valuable resource to visitors who would like to learn more about the 
culture, history, and environment of the Four Corners region.
  Mr. President, I wish to emphasize that this bill reflects the 
initiative of the local tribes and elected officials. This is not a 
federal imposition, but federal support of sustainable economic 
development in an area that is in desperate need of it. The Four 
Corners Heritage Council, which is comprised of tribal leaders, local 
government and private sectors leaders, has been instrumental in 
developing this bill.
  Not only will the interpretive center benefit the local tribes, but 
it will help to create more interest among tourists of other 
attractions and sites in the entire Four Corners region. Within a 100 
mile radius of the monument there are multiple sites and parks for the 
enjoyment of tourists, such as Zion National Park, Arches National 
Park, the Grand Canyon, Rainbow Bridge, Hovenweep, Mesa Verde, and 
much, much, more. Because of its central location, the center would act 
as a staging ground for the entire Colorado Plateau.
  That this proposal reflects the needs of so many in the area, is 
reflected by the strong support among all the region's tribal and local 
governments, and the San Juan Forum, which represents federal state and 
local interests in the four states. The Albuquerque Tribune 
editorialized last year that ``the project merits New Mexico's strong 
support.'' The state of Arizona has already set aside $250,000 for 
their share of the project. In addition, the Arizona Department of 
Transportation has produced draft plans for the new center and for the 
road changes that would be required. The other states have also shown 
interest as well, which is important as they will be required to match 
the $2 million authorized by this bill for the project.
  Mr. President, this bill represents cooperation of federal, state, 
local, and tribal governments in an effort to reaffirm our ties to our 
past while building for our future. I urge my colleagues to give this 
proposal their full support.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak in support of this 
important legislation being introduced today by my friend from Utah, 
Senator Hatch. The bill authorizes the construction of a much needed 
interpretive visitor center at the Four Corners Monument. An identical 
bill passed the Senate unanimously last September.
  As I am sure all Senators know, the Four Corners is the only place in 
America where the boundaries of four states meet in one spot. The 
monument is located on the Navajo and Ute Mountain Ute Reservations and 
currently operated as a Tribal Park.
  Nearly a quarter of a million people visit this unique site every 
year. However, currently there are no facilities for tourists at the 
park and nothing that explains the very special features of the Four 
Corners region. This bill authorizes the Department of the Interior to 
contribute $2 million toward the construction of an interpretive center 
and basic facilities for visitors.
  Mr. President, the Four Corners Monument is more than a geographic 
curiosity. It also serves as a focal point for some of the most 
beautiful landscape and significant cultural attractions in our 
country. An interpretive center will help visitors appreciate the many 
special features of the region. For example, within a short distance of 
the monument are the cliff dwellings of Mesa Verde, Colorado; the Red 
Rock and Natural Bridges areas of Utah; and in Arizona, Monument Valley 
and Canyon de Chelly. The beautiful San Juan River, one of the top 
trout streams in the Southwest, flows through Colorado, New Mexico, and 
Utah.
  In my state of New Mexico, both the legendary mountain known as 
Shiprock and the Chaco Canyon Culture National Historical Park are a 
short distance from the Four Corners.
  Mr. President, Shiprock is one of the best known and most beautiful 
landmarks in New Mexico. The giant volcanic monolith rises nearly 2000 
feet straight up from the surrounding plain. Ancient legend tells us 
the mountain was created when a giant bird settled to earth and turned 
to stone. In the Navajo language, the mountain is named Tse' bi t' ai 
or the Winged Rock. Early Anglo settlers saw the mountain's soaring 
spires and thought they resembled the sails of a huge ship, so they 
named it Shiprock.
  The Four Corners is also the site of Chaco Canyon. Chaco was an 
important Anasazi cultural center from about 900 through 1130 A.D. Pre-
Columbian civilization in the Southwest reached its greatest 
development there. The massive stone ruins, containing hundreds of 
rooms, attest to Chaco's cultural importance. As many as 7,000 people 
may have lived at Chaco at one time. Some of the structures are thought 
to house ancient astronomical observatories to mark the passage of the 
seasons. The discovery of jewelry from Mexico and California and a vast 
network of roads is evidence of the advanced trading carried on at 
Chaco. Perhaps, the most spectacular accomplishment at Chaco was in 
architecture. Pueblo Bonito, the largest structure, contains more than 
800 rooms and 32 kivas. Some parts are more than five stories high. The 
masonry work is truly exquisite. Stones were so finely worked and 
fitted together that no mortar was needed. Remarkably, all this was 
accomplished without metal tools or the wheel.
  Mr. President, 1999 marks the centennial year of the first monument 
at the Four Corners. An interpretive center is urgently needed today to 
showcase the history, culture, and scenery of this very special place. 
New facilities at the monument will attract visitors and help stimulate 
economic development throughout the region.
  The legislation the Senate passed last year had wide-spread support 
from state, tribal, and local interests.
  Mr. President, I hope the Senate will again take prompt action on 
this bill. I also urge the House to move forward this year to pass this 
important legislation. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill with 
Senator Hatch, and I thank him for his efforts.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a May 7, 1998, editorial 
from the Albuquerque Tribune be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Albuquerque Tribune, May 7, 1998]

                Four Corners Visitors Center--And Beyond

       When scheming to promote tourism, four heads are better 
     than one.
       New Mexico, Utah, Arizona and Colorado have an opportunity 
     to create the proposed $4 million Four Corners visitors 
     center. The project merits New Mexico's strong support.
       The Tribune has liked the idea of forging a four-state 
     regional alliance for tourism ever

[[Page 764]]

     since former Interior Secretary Stewart Udall proposed his 
     ``America's Scenic Circle'' plan on these pages June 18. He 
     argued that New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Colorado and the 
     Indian tribes in those states should reach out to the 
     international tourism market by joining forces. The cultural 
     and natural attractions in these states, taken individually, 
     have great appeal, he said--but nothing like they would if 
     touted together in respectful and tastefully designed 
     packages.
       The Trib revisited the idea of regional tourism alliances 
     again in the Insight & Opinion section April 30. There, state 
     and Albuquerque tourism officials explained how such 
     alliances could boost the effect of New Mexico's tourism-
     marketing dollars.
       The Four Corners visitors center would become a strong 
     footing for a four-state alliance.
       It would be built at the Four Corners Monument Tribal Park, 
     where the four states meet. The exact site and design are 
     undetermined, and the Navajo and Ute tribes would have a say 
     in the development. We hope the design physically binds the 
     four states together. There is no visitors center at Four 
     Corners now.
       The center was proposed by Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch last week 
     in a bill co-sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman. Half of the $4 
     million cost would be paid with federal tax dollars. The 
     remainder would be split among the four states--giving each a 
     deep stake in the project.
       The purpose of the center is to clearly interpret, showcase 
     and promote the special features of the region, from Shiprock 
     and Chaco Canyon in New Mexico to Mesa Verde in Colorado to 
     Red Rock in Utah to Monument Valley in Arizona. Every state 
     and tribe involved would benefit.
       The bill does not say so, but the center also could become 
     the focus for continuing, broader relationships along the 
     lines that Udall proposed. It commits the four states to 
     working with one another at least in the Four Corners area; 
     it's not a quantum leap from that to ``America's Scenic 
     Circle.''
       Let's use our four heads and support this move.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 29. A bill to amend section 1086 of title 10, United States Code, 
to provide for payment under CHAMPUS of certain health care expenses 
incurred by certain members and former members of the uniformed 
services and their dependents to the extent that such expenses are not 
payments under medicare, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Armed Services.


                    THE CAMPUS AMENDMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I feel that it is imperative that our 
nation continue its firm commitment to those individuals and their 
families who have served in the Armed Forces and made us the great 
nation we are today. As this population ages, there is a need for a 
wider range of health services, some of which are simply not available 
under Medicare. These individuals made a commitment to their nation, 
trusting that when they needed help the nation would honor that 
commitment. The bill I am introducing today would ensure the highest 
possible quality of care for these dedicated citizens and their 
families by authorizing payment under CHAMPUS of certain health care 
expenses to the extent such expenses are not payable under Medicare.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 29

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

     SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF MEDICARE EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION 
                   OF CHAMPUS COVERAGE FOR CARE COVERED BY ANOTHER 
                   HEALTH CARE PLAN.

       (a) Amendment and Reorganization of Exceptions.--Subsection 
     (d) of section 1086 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(d)(1) Section 1079(j) of this title shall apply to a 
     plan contracted for under this section except as follows:
       ``(A) Subject to paragraph (2), a benefit may be paid under 
     such plan in the case of a person referred to in subsection 
     (c) for items and services for which payment is made under 
     title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
       ``(B) No person eligible for health benefits under this 
     section may be denied benefits under this section with 
     respect to care or treatment for any service-connected 
     disability which is compensable under chapter 11 of title 38 
     solely on the basis that such person is entitled to care or 
     treatment for such disability in facilities of the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs.
       ``(2) If a person described in paragraph (1)(A) receives 
     medical or dental care for which payment may be made under 
     both title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 
     et seq.) and a plan contracted for under subsection (a), the 
     amount payable for that care under the plan may not exceed 
     the difference between--
       ``(A) the sum of any deductibles, coinsurance, and balance 
     billing charges that would be imposed on the person if 
     payment for that care were made solely under that title; and
       ``(B) the sum of any deductibles, coinsurance, and balance 
     billing charges that would be imposed on the person if 
     payment for that care were made solely under the plan.
       ``(3) A plan contracted for under this section shall not be 
     considered a group health plan or large group health plan for 
     the purposes of paragraph (2) or (3) of section 1862(b) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)).
       ``(4) A person who, by reason of the application of 
     paragraph (1), receives a benefit for items or services under 
     a plan contracted for under this section shall provide the 
     Secretary of Defense with any information relating to amounts 
     charged and paid for the items and services that, after 
     consulting with the other administering Secretaries, the 
     Secretary requires. A certification of such person regarding 
     such amounts may be accepted for the purposes of determining 
     the benefit payable under this section.''.
       (b) Repeal of Superseded Provision.--Such section is 
     further amended--
       (1) by striking out subsection (g); and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g).

     SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Section 1713(d) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking out ``section 1086(d)(1) of title 10 or''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect with 
     respect to health care items or services provided on and 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 31. A bill to amend title 1, United States Code, to clarify the 
effect an application of legislation; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


          to clarify the application and effect of legislation

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
clarify the application and effect of legislation which the Congress 
enacts.
  My act is simple and straightforward. It provides that unless future 
legislation expressly states otherwise, new enactments shall be applied 
prospectively and shall not create private rights of action. This will 
significantly reduce unnecessary litigation and court costs, and will 
benefit both the public and our judicial system.
  The purpose of this legislation is to tackle a persistent problem 
that is easy to prevent. When Congress enacts a bill, the legislation 
often does not indicate whether it is to be applied retroactively or 
whether it creates private rights of action. The failure of the 
Congress to address these issues in each piece of legislation results 
in unnecessary confusion and uncertainty. This uncertainty leads to 
lawsuits, thereby contributing to the high cost of litigation and the 
congestion of our courts.
  In the absence of clear action by the Congress on its intent 
regarding these critical threshold questions, the outcome is left up to 
the courts. Whether a law applies to conduct that occurred before the 
effective date of the Act and whether a private person has been granted 
the right to sue on their own behalf in civil court under an Act can be 
critical or even dispositive of a case. Even if the issue is only one 
aspect of a case and it is raised early in a lawsuit, a decision that 
the lawsuit can proceed generally cannot be appealed until the end of 
the case. If the appellate court eventually rules that one of these 
issues should have prevented the trial, the litigants have been put to 
substantial burden and unnecessary expenses which could have been 
avoided.
  Currently, courts attempt to determine the intent of the Congress in 
deciding the effect and application of legislation in this regard. 
Thus, courts look first and foremost to the statutory language. If a 
statute expressly provides that it is retroactive or creates a private 
cause of action, that dictate is followed. Further, courts apply a 
presumption that legislation is not retroactive. This is an entirely 
appropriate, longstanding rule because, absent mistake or an emergency, 
fundamental fairness generally dictates that conduct should be assessed 
under the

[[Page 765]]

rules that existed at the time the conduct took place. There is a 
similar presumption that the Congress did not intend to create rights 
beyond those that it expressly includes in its legislation.
  If the intent of Congress is not clear from the statute, courts 
generally look to legislative history, statutory structure, and 
possible other sources of Congressional intent. This is where the 
unnecessary complexity and confusion is created. Sources other than 
statutory language are to varying degrees less reliable in predicting 
Congressional intent. They are much more difficult to interpret and may 
even be contradictory. The more sources for the courts to analyze and 
the more vague the standard for review, the more likely courts will 
reach different results. Under current practice, trial courts around 
the country reach conflicting and inconsistent results on these issues, 
as do appellate courts when the issues are appealed.
  The problem of whether legislation is retroactive was dramatically 
illustrated after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. District 
courts and courts of appeal all over the country were required to 
resolve whether the 1991 Act should be applied retroactively, and the 
issue ultimately was considered by the Supreme Court. However, by the 
time the Court resolved the issue in 1994, well over 100 lower courts 
had ruled on this question and, although most had not found 
retroactivity, their decisions were inconsistent. Countless litigants 
across the country expended substantial resources debating this 
threshold procedural issue.
  All this litigation arose from a statute that contained no language 
providing that it be retroactive. To conclude that the provision of the 
statute in issue in the case was not to be applied retroactively, the 
majority opinion of the Court took 39 pages in the United States 
Reporter to explain why. It undertook a detailed analysis that 
demonstrates the unnecessary complexity of the current standard. It is 
no wonder that some Supreme Court justices argued in this case that a 
court should look only to whether the language of the statute expressly 
provides for retroactivity. That is what I propose. If my law has been 
in effect, the litigation would have been averted, while the outcome 
would have been exactly the same as the Supreme Court decided.
  Under my bill, newly enacted laws are not to be applied retroactively 
and do not create a private right of action, unless the legislation 
expressly provides otherwise. It is important to note that my bill does 
not in any way restrict the Congress on these important issues. The 
Congress may override this presumption or create new private rights of 
action.
  One United States District Judge in my State informs me that he 
spends at least 10 percent of his time on these issues. It is clear 
that this legislation would save litigants and our judicial system 
millions of dollars by avoiding a great deal of uncertainty and 
litigation.
  Mr. President, if we are truly concerned about relieving the backlog 
of cases in our courts and reducing the costs of litigation, we should 
help our judicial system to focus its limited time and resources on 
resolving the merits of disputes, rather than deciding these 
preliminary matters. We hear numerous complaints about overworked 
judges and crowded dockets. This is a simple and straightforward way to 
do something about it. The Congress can help reduce the Federal 
caseload and help simplify the law. We should act on this important 
reform promptly.
  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. 31

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

     SECTION 1. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO RETROACTIVE 
                   APPLICATION OF STATUTES AND THE CREATION OF 
                   PRIVATE CLAIMS AND CAUSES OF ACTION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 8. Rules for determining the retroactive effect of 
       legislation and the creation of private claims and causes 
       of action

       ``(a) Unless a provision included in the Act expressly 
     specifies otherwise, any Act of Congress enacted after the 
     effective date of this section shall--
       ``(1) be prospective in application only; and
       ``(2) not create a private claim or cause of action.
       ``(b) In applying subsection (a)(1), a court shall 
     determine the relevant retroactivity event in an Act of 
     Congress (if such event is not specified in such Act) for 
     purposes of determining if the Act--
       ``(1) is prospective in application only; or
       ``(2) affects conduct that occurred before the effective 
     date of the Act.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the item relating to section 7 the 
     following:

``8. Rules for determining the retroactive effect of legislation and 
              the creation of private claims and causes of action.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 32. A bill to eliminate a requirement for a unanimous verdict in 
criminal trials in Federal courts; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


  legislation to allow federal criminal conviction on a 10-2 jury vote

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
allow juries to convict criminals on a 10-2 jury vote rather than a 
unanimous vote.
  It is my belief that this change to the Federal Rules of Criminal 
Procedure will bring about increased efficiency and finality in our 
Nation's Federal court system while maintaining the integrity of the 
pursuit of justice.
  This legislation is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling 
concerning unanimity injury verdicts, specifically in Apodaca v. Oregon 
[406 U.S. 404 (1972)]. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the 
Sixth Amendment guarantee of a jury trial does not require that the 
jury's vote be unanimous. The Supreme Court affirmed an Oregon law that 
permitted what I am proposing--a 10-2 conviction in criminal 
prosecutions.
  Mr. President, clearly there is no constitutional mandate for the 
current requirement under the Federal Rules of a jury verdict by a 
unanimous vote. The origins of the unanimity rule are not easy to 
trace, although it may date back to the latter half of the 14th 
century. One theory proffered is that defendants had few other rules to 
ensure a fair trial and a unanimous jury vote for conviction 
compensated for other inadequacies at trial. Of course, today the 
entire trial process is heavily tilted towards the accused with many, 
many safeguards in place to ensure that the defendant receives a fair 
trial.
  Its interesting that a unanimity requirement was considered by our 
Founding Fathers as part of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, 
but it was rejected. The proposed language for the Sixth Amendment, as 
introduced by James Madison in the House of Representatives, provided 
for trial by jury as well as a ``requisite of unanimity for 
conviction.'' The language eventually adopted by the Congress and the 
States in the Sixth Amendment provides ``the right to a speedy and 
public trial, by an impartial jury,'' but does not specify any 
requirement on conviction. This was a wise decision.
  It is clear that ``trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to 
the American scheme of justice,'' as the Supreme Court has stated. 
Juries are representative of the community and their solemn duty is to 
hear the evidence, deliberate, and decide the case after careful review 
of the facts and the law. As the Supreme Court has noted, a jury can 
responsibly perform this function if allowed to decide the case by a 
margin that is less than unanimous.
  This change for jury verdicts in the Federal courts will reduce the 
likelihood of a single juror corrupting an otherwise thoughtful and 
reasonable deliberation of the evidence. It is not easy to adequately 
screen a juror for potential bias before they are selected to serve on 
a jury. This cannot be done with absolute certainty. We should work to 
prevent one such juror from having the power to prevent justice from 
being served.

[[Page 766]]

  One juror should not have the power to allow a criminal to go free in 
the face of considerable opposition from his peers on the jury. Even if 
a defendant is tried again after one or two jurors hold out against 
conviction, a new trial is very costly and time-consuming. Most 
importantly, a new trial substantially delays justice for the victims 
and society.
  It is important to note that this new rule could also work to the 
advantage of someone on trial. Currently, if there is a hung jury, a 
prosecutor has the power to retry a defendant. This is true even if 
only one juror believed the defendant was guilty. Under this new rule, 
if at least ten jurors concluded that the defendant was not guilty, he 
would be acquitted and could not be forced to endure a new trial. This 
rule has the potential to benefit either side as it brings finality to 
a criminal case.
  In other words, there are cases where a requirement of unanimity 
produced a hung jury where, had there been a nonunanimous allowance, 
the jury would have voted to convict or acquit. Yet, in either 
instance, the defendant is accorded his constitutional right of a 
judgment by his peers. It is my firm belief that this legislation will 
not undermine the pillars of justice or result in the conviction of 
innocent persons.
  Moreover, I believe the American people will strongly support this 
reform to allow a 10-2 decision. This is one way the Congress can help 
fight crime and promote criminal justice.
  Mr. President, I hope the Congress will support this important 
proposal. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in its 
entirety in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 32

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF RULE 31 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF 
                   CRIMINAL PROCEDURES.

       (a) In General.--Rule 31(a) of the Federal Rules of 
     Criminal Procedure is amended by striking ``unanimous'' and 
     inserting ``by five-sixths of the jury''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to cases pending or commenced on or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. Helms)
  S. 33. A bill to amend title II of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act of 1990 and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to 
exclude prisoners from the requirements of that title and section; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                 the state and local prison relief act

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
address an undue burden that has arisen out of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act.
  The purpose of the ADA was to give disabled Americans the opportunity 
to fully participate in society and contribute to it. This was a worthy 
goal. But even legislation with the best of intentions often has 
unintended consequences. I submit that one of those is the application 
of the ADA to state and local prisoners throughout America.
  Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in Pennsylvania Department of 
Corrections v. Yeskey [118 S.Ct. 1952 (1998)] that the ADA applied to 
every state prison and local jail in this country. To no avail, the 
Attorneys General of most states, as well as numerous state and local 
organizations, had joined with Pennsylvania in court filings to oppose 
the ADA applying to prisoners.
  Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, the circuit courts were split on 
the issue. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, my home circuit, had 
forcefully concluded that the ADA, as well as its predecessor and 
companion law, the Rehabilitation Act, did not apply to state 
prisoners. The decision focused on federalism concerns and the fact 
that the Congress did not make clear that it intended to involve itself 
to this degree in an activity traditionally reserved to the States.
  However, the Supreme Court did not agree, holding that the language 
of the Act is broad enough to clearly cover state prisons. It is not an 
issue on the Federal level because the Federal Bureau of Prisons 
voluntarily complies with the Act. The Supreme Court did not say 
whether applying the ADA to state prisons exceeded the Congress' powers 
under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, but we should 
not wait on the outcome of this argument to act. Although it was 
rational for the Supreme Court to read the broad language of the ADA 
the way it did, it is far from clear that we in the Congress considered 
the application of this sweeping new social legislation in the prison 
environment.
  The Seventh Circuit has recognized that the ``failure to exclude 
prisoners may well have been an oversight.'' The findings and purpose 
of the law seem to support this. The introductory language of the ADA 
states, ``The Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with 
disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, 
independent living, and economic self-sufficiency'' to allow ``people 
with disabilities . . . to compete on an equal basis and to pursue 
those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous.'' 
Of course, a prison is not a free society, as the findings and purpose 
of the Act envisioned. Indeed, it is quite the opposite. In short, as 
the Ninth Circuit explained, ``The Act was not designed to deal 
specifically with the prison environment; it was intended for general 
societal application.''
  In any event, now that the Supreme Court has spoken, it is time for 
the Congress to confront this issue. The Congress should act now to 
exempt state and local prisons from the ADA. That is why I am 
introducing the State and Local Prison Relief Act, as I did soon after 
the Supreme Court decided the Yeskey case last year.
  The State and Local Prison Relief Act would exempt prisons from the 
requirements of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act for prisoners. More 
specifically, it exempts any services, accommodations, programs, 
activities or treatment of any kind regarding prisoners that may 
otherwise be required by the Acts. Through this language, which I have 
slightly revised since introducing the bill last year, I wish to make 
entirely clear that the bill is not intended to exempt prisons from 
having to accommodate disabled legal counsel, visitors, or others who 
are not inmates. Also, the fact that the bill applies to Title II of 
the ADA should make clear that it is not intended to exempt prison 
hiring practices for non-inmate employees. The bill is intended only to 
apply to prisoners.
  I firmly believe that if we do not act, the ADA will have broad 
adverse implications for the management of penal institutions. 
Prisoners will file an endless number of lawsuits demanding special 
privileges, which will involve Federal judges in the intricate details 
of running our state and local prisons.
  Mr. President, we should continuously remind ourselves that the 
Constitution created a Federal government of limited, enumerated 
powers. Those powers not delegated to the Federal government were 
reserved to the states or the people. As James Madison wrote in 
Federalist No. 45, ``the powers delegated to the Federal government are 
few and definite. . . . [The powers] which are to remain in the State 
governments are numerous and indefinite.'' The Federal government 
should avoid intrusion into matters traditionally reserved for the 
states. We must respect this delicate balance of power. Unfortunately, 
federalism is more often spoken about than respected.
  Although the entire ADA raises federalism concerns, the problem is 
especially acute in the prison context. There are few powers more 
traditionally reserved for the states than crime. The criminal laws 
have always been the province of the states, and the vast majority of 
prisoners have always been housed in state prisons. The First Congress 
enacted a law asking the states to house Federal prisoners in their 
jails for fifty cents per month. The first Federal prison was not built 
until over 100 years later, and only three existed before 1925.
  Even today, as the size and scope of the Federal government has grown 
immensely, only about 6% of prisoners are housed in Federal 
institutions. Managing that other 94% is a core state function. As the 
Supreme Court

[[Page 767]]

has stated, ``Maintenance of penal institutions is an essential part of 
one of government's primary functions--the preservation of societal 
order through enforcement of the criminal law. It is difficult to 
imagine an activity in which a State has a stronger interest, or one 
that is more intricately bound up with state laws, regulations, and 
procedures.''
  The primary function of prisons is to house criminals. Safety and 
security are the overriding concerns of prison administration. The 
rules and regulations, the daily schedules, the living and working 
arrangements--these all revolve around protecting prison employees, 
inmates, and the public. But the goal of the ADA is to take away any 
barrier to anyone with any disability. Accommodating inmates in the 
manner required by the ADA will interfere with the ability of prison 
administrators to keep safety and security their overriding concern.
  For example, a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled that a prisoner 
who disobeyed a direct order could not be punished because of the ADA. 
The judge said it was okay for a prisoner to return to his cell after 
he was told not to by a guard, saying the prisoner was justified in 
refusing to comply because he was doing so to relieve stress built up 
due to his Tourette's Syndrome.
  The practical effect of the ADA will be that prison officials will 
have to grant special privileges to certain inmates and to excuse 
others from complying with generally-applicable prison rules. For 
example, a federal judge ordered an Iowa prison to install cable TV in 
a disabled inmate's cell because the man had difficulty going to the 
common areas to watch TV. After much public protest, the ruling was 
eventually reversed.
  The ADA presents a perfect opportunity for prisoners to try to beat 
the system, and use the courts to do it. There are over 1.7 million 
inmates in state prisons and local jails, and the numbers are rising 
every year. Indeed, the total prison population has grown about 6.5% 
per year since 1990. Prisons have a substantially greater percentage of 
persons with disabilities that are covered by the ADA than the general 
population, including AIDS, mental retardation, psychological 
disorders, learning disabilities, drug addiction, and alcoholism. 
Further, administrators control every aspect of prisoners' lives, such 
as assigning educational opportunities, recreation, and jobs in prison 
industries. Combine these facts, and the possibilities for lawsuits are 
endless.
  For example, in most state prison systems, inmates are classified and 
assigned based in part on their disabilities. This helps administrators 
meet the disabled inmates' needs in a cost-effective manner. However, 
under the ADA, prisoners probably will be able to claim that they must 
be assigned to a prison without regard to their disability. Were it not 
for their disability, they may have been assigned to the prison closest 
to their home, and in that case, every prison would have to be able to 
accommodate every disability. That could mean every prison having, for 
example, mental health treatment centers, services for hearing-impaired 
inmates, and dialysis treatment. The cost is potentially enormous.
  A related expense is attorney's fees. The ADA has incentives to 
encourage private litigants to vindicate their rights in court. Any 
plaintiff, including an inmate, who is only partially successful can 
get generous attorney's fees and monetary damages, possibly including 
even punitive damages. In an ongoing ADA class action lawsuit in 
California, the state has paid the prisoners' attorneys over $2 
million, with hourly fees as high as $300.
  Applying the ADA to prisons is the latest unfunded Federal mandate 
that we are imposing on the states.
  Adequate funding is hard for prisons to achieve, especially in state 
and local communities where all government funds are scarce. The public 
is angry about how much money must be spent to house prisoners. Even 
with prison populations rising, the people do not want more of their 
money spent on prisoners. Often, there is simply not enough money to 
make the changes in challenged programs to accommodate the disabled. If 
prison administrators do not have the money to change a program, they 
will probably have to eliminate it. Thus, accommodation could mean the 
elimination of worthwhile educational, recreational, and rehabilitative 
programs, making all inmates worse off.
  Apart from money, accommodation may mean modifying the program in 
such a way as to take away its beneficial purpose. A good example is 
the Supreme Court's Yeskey case itself. Yeskey was declared medically 
ineligible to participate in a boot camp program because he had high 
blood pressure. So, he sued under the ADA. The boot camp required 
rigorous physical activity, such as work projects. If the program has 
to be changed to accommodate his physical abilities, it may not meet 
its basic goals, and the authorities may eliminate it. Thus, the result 
could be that everyone loses the benefit of an otherwise effective 
correctional tool.
  Another impact of the ADA may be to make an already volatile prison 
environment even more difficult to control. Many inmates are very 
sensitive to the privileges and benefits that others get in a world 
where privileges are relatively few. Some have irrational suspicions 
and phobias. An inmate who is not disabled may be angry if he believes 
a disabled prisoner is getting special treatment, without rationally 
accepting that the law require it, and could take out his anger on 
others around him, including the disabled prisoner.
  We must keep in mind that it is judges who will be making these 
policy decisions. To apply the Act and determine what phrases like 
``qualified individual with a disability'' mean, judges must involve 
themselves in intricate, fact-intensive issues. Essentially, the ADA 
requires judges to micromanage prisons. Judges are not qualified to 
second-guess prison administrators and make these complex, difficult 
decisions. Prisons cannot be run by judicial decree.
  In applying Constitutional rights to prisoners, the Supreme Court has 
tried to get away from micromanagement and has viewed prisoner claims 
deferentially in favor of the expertise of prison officials. It has 
stated that we will not ``substitute our judgment on difficult and 
sensitive matters of institutional administration for the 
determinations of those charged with the formidable task of running a 
prison. This approach ensures the ability of corrections officials to 
anticipate security problems and to adopt innovative solutions to the 
intractable problems of prison administration, and avoids unnecessary 
intrusion of the judiciary into problems particularly ill suited to 
resolution by decree.''
  Take for example a case from the Fourth Circuit, my home circuit, 
from 1995. The Court explained that a morbidly obese inmate presented 
corrections officials ``with a lengthy and ever-increasing list of 
modifications which he insisted were necessary to accommodate his obese 
condition. Thus, he demanded a larger cell, a cell closer to support 
facilities, handrails to assist him in using the toilet, wider 
entrances to his cell and the showers, non-skid matting in the lobby 
area, and alternative outdoor recreational activities to accommodate 
his inability to stand or walk for long periods.'' It is not workable 
for judges to resolve all of these questions.
  It is noteworthy that a primary purpose of the Prison Litigation 
Reform Act was to stop judges from micromanaging prisons and to reduce 
the burdens of prison litigation. As the Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court recognized last year, the PLRA is having some success. However, 
this most recent Supreme Court decision will hamper that progress.
  Moreover, the ADA delegated to Federal agencies the authority to 
create regulations to implement the law. In response, the Federal 
bureaucracy has created extremely specific and detailed mandates. 
Regarding facilities, they dictate everything from the number of water 
fountains to the flash rates of visual alarms. State and local 
correctional authorities must fall in line behind these regulations. In 
yet another

[[Page 768]]

way, we have the Justice Department exercising regulatory oversight 
over our state and local communities.
  Prisons are fundamentally different from other places in society. 
Prisoners are not entitled to all of the rights and privileges of law-
abiding citizens, but they often get them. They have cable television. 
They have access to better gyms and libraries than most Americans. The 
list goes on.
  The public is tired of special privileges for prisoners. Applying the 
ADA to prisons is a giant step in the wrong direction. Prisoners will 
abuse the ADA to get privilege they were previously denied, and the 
reason will be the overreaching hand of the Federal government. We 
should not let this happen.
  Mr. President, the National Government has gone full circle. We have 
gone from asking the states to house Federal prisoners to dictating to 
the states how they must house their own prisoners. There must be some 
end to the powers of the Federal government, and to the privileges it 
grants the inmates of this Nation. I propose that we start by passing 
this important legislation.
  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. 33

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

     SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF PRISONERS.

       (a) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.--Section 
     201(2) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12131(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The term shall not include a prisoner in a 
     prison, as such terms are defined in section 3626(g) of title 
     18, United States Code, with respect to services, programs, 
     activities, and treatment (including accommodations) relating 
     to the prison.''.
       (b) Rehabilitation Act of 1973.--Paragraph (20) of section 
     7 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as redesignated in 
     section 402(a)(1) of the Departments of Labor, Health and 
     Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1999) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (H); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following:
       ``(G) Prison programs and activities; exclusion of 
     prisoners.--For purposes of section 504, the term `individual 
     with a disability' shall not include a prisoner in a prison, 
     as such terms are defined in section 3626(g) of title 18, 
     United States Code, with respect to programs and activities 
     (including accommodations) relating to the prison.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 34. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the 
remedial jurisdiction of inferior Federal courts; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


                 the judicial taxation prohibition act

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
prohibit Federal judges from imposing a tax increase as a judicial 
remedy.
  It has always been my firm belief that Federal judges exceed the 
boundaries of their limited jurisdiction under the Constitution when 
they order new taxes or order increases in existing tax rates.
  The Founding Fathers clearly understood that taxation was a role for 
the legislative branch and not the judicial branch. Article I of the 
Constitution lists the legislative powers, one of which is that ``the 
Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes.'' Article III 
establishes the judicial powers, and the power to tax is nowhere 
contained in Article III.
  The Federalist Papers are also clear in this regard. In Federalist 
No. 48, James Madison explained that ``the legislative branch alone has 
access to the pockets of the people.'' In Federalist No. 78, Alexander 
Hamilton stated, ``The judiciary . . . has no influence over . . . the 
purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the 
society, and can take no active resolution whatever.''
  In 1990, in the case of Missouri v. Jenkins, five members of the 
Supreme Court stated in dicta that although a Federal judge could not 
directly raise taxes, he could order the local government to raise 
taxes. There is no difference between a judge raising taxes and a judge 
ordering a legislative official to raise taxes. I am hopeful that, if 
the issue were directly before the Court today, a majority of the 
current membership of the Court would reject that dicta and hold that 
Federal judges do not have the power to order that taxes be raised. 
However, in the event the Court does not correct this error, I am 
introducing the Judicial Taxation Prohibition Act, which would prohibit 
judges from raising taxes. I have introduced it in every Congress since 
the Supreme Court's misguided decision was issued, and I intend to do 
so until it is corrected. This legislation is essential to affirm the 
separation of powers.
  There is a simple reason why this distinction between the branches of 
government is so important and must remain clear. The legislative 
branch is responsible to the people through the democratic process. 
However, the judicial branch is composed of individuals who are not 
elected and have life tenure. By design, the members of the judicial 
branch do not depend on the popular will for their offices. They are 
not accountable to the people. They simply have no business setting the 
rate of taxes the people must pay. For a judge to order that taxes be 
increased amounts to taxation without representation. It is entirely 
contrary to the understanding of the Founding Fathers.
  The phrase ``taxation without representation'' recalls an important 
time in America history that is worth repeating in some detail. The 
Constitution can best be understood by referencing the era in which it 
was adopted.
  Not since Great Britain's ministry of George Grenville in 1765 have 
the American people faced the assault of taxation without 
representation as now authorized in the Jenkins decision. As part of 
his imperial reforms to tighten British control in the colonies, 
Grenville pushed the Stamp Act through the Parliament in 1765. This Act 
required excise duties to be paid by the colonists in the form of 
revenue stamps affixed to a variety of legal documents. This action 
came at a time when the colonies were in an uproar over the Sugar Act 
of 1764 which levied duties on certain imports such as sugar, indigo, 
coffee, linens.
  The ensuing firestorm of debate in America centered on the power of 
Britain to tax the colonies. James Otis, a young Boston attorney, 
echoed the opinion of most colonists stating that the Parliament did 
not have power to tax the colonies because Americans had no 
representation in that body. Mr. Otis had been attributed in 1761 with 
the statement that ``taxation without representation is tyranny.''
  In October 1765, delegates from nine states were sent to New York as 
part of the Stamp Act Congress to protest the new law. It was during 
this time that John Adams wrote in opposition to the Stamp Act, ``We 
have always understood it to be a grand and fundamental principle . . . 
that no freeman shall be subject to any tax to which he has not given 
his own consent, in person or by proxy.'' A number of resolutions were 
adopted by the Stamp Act Congress protesting the acts of Parliament. 
One resolution stated, ``It is inseparably essential to the freedom of 
a people . . . that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own 
consent, given personally or by their representatives.'' The 
resolutions concluded that the Stamp Act had a ``manifest tendency to 
subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists.''
  Opposition to the Stamp Act was vehement throughout the colonies. 
While Grenville's successor was determined to repeal the law, the 
social, economic and political climate in the colonies brought on the 
American Revolution. The principles expressed during the earlier crisis 
against taxation without representation became firmly imbedded in our 
Federal Constitution of 1787.
  I recognize that some say this legislation is unconstitutional. They 
argue that the Congress does not have the authority under Article III 
to limit and regulate the jurisdiction of the inferior Federal courts. 
This argument has no basis in the Constitution or common sense.
  Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution provides jurisdiction to 
the lower

[[Page 769]]

Federal courts as the ``Congress may from time to time ordain and 
establish.'' There is no mandate in the Constitution to confer equity 
jurisdiction to the inferior Federal courts. Congress has the 
flexibility under Article III to ``ordain and establish'' the lower 
Federal courts as it deems appropriate. This basic premise has been 
upheld by the Supreme Court in a number of cases including Lawcourt v. 
Phillips, Lauf v. E.G. Skinner and Co., Kline v. Burke Construction 
Co., and Sheldon v. Sill.
  In other words, the Congress was expressly granted the authority to 
establish lower Federal courts, which it did. What the Congress has 
been given the power to do, it can certainly decide to stop doing. By 
passing this bill, the Congress would simply be limiting the 
jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts in a small area.
  It is also important to note that this legislation would not restrict 
the power of the Federal courts to remedy Constitutional wrongs. 
Clearly, the Court has the power to order a remedy for a Constitutional 
violation that may include expenditures of money by Federal, State, or 
local governments. This bill simply requires that if the Court orders 
that money be spent, it is for the legislative body to decide how to 
comply with that order. The legislative body may choose to raise taxes, 
but it also may choose to cut spending or sell assets. That choice of 
how to come up with the money should always be for the legislature to 
decide. I believe it is clear under Article III that the Congress has 
the authority to restrict the remedial jurisdiction of the Federal 
Courts in this fashion.
  Mr. President, the dispositive issue presented by the Jenkins 
decision is whether the American people want, as a matter of national 
policy, to be exposed to taxation without their consent by an 
independent and insulated judiciary. I most assuredly believe they do 
not.
  Mr. President, how long will it be before a Federal judge orders tax 
increases to build new highways or prisons? I do not believe the 
Founding Fathers had this type of activism in mind when they 
established the judicial branch of government.
  Judicial activism is a matter of great concern to me and has been for 
many years. I have always felt that Federal judges must strictly adhere 
to the principle that it is their role to interpret the law and not 
make the law. This simple principle is fundamental to our system of 
government.
  The American people deserve a response to the Jenkins decision. We 
must provide protection against the imposition of taxes by an 
unelected, unaccountable judiciary. We must not permit this blatant 
violation of the separation of powers. We have a duty to right this 
wrong.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 34

       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 ``Judicial Taxation 
     Prohibition Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) a variety of effective and appropriate judicial 
     remedies are available for the full redress of legal and 
     constitutional violations under existing law, and that the 
     imposition or increase of taxes by courts is neither 
     necessary nor appropriate for the full and effective exercise 
     of Federal court jurisdiction;
       (2) the imposition or increase of taxes by judicial order 
     constitutes an unauthorized and inappropriate exercise of the 
     judicial power under the Constitution of the United States 
     and is incompatible with traditional principles of law and 
     government of the United States and the basic principle of 
     the United States that taxation without representation is 
     tyranny;
       (3) Federal courts exceed the proper boundaries of their 
     limited jurisdiction and authority under the Constitution of 
     the United States, and impermissibly intrude on the 
     legislative function in a democratic system of government, 
     when they issue orders requiring the imposition of new taxes 
     or the increase of existing taxes; and
       (4) Congress retains the authority under article III, 
     sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution of the United States to 
     limit and regulate the jurisdiction of the inferior Federal 
     courts that Congress has seen fit to establish, and such 
     authority includes the power to limit the remedial authority 
     of inferior Federal courts.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 85 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1341 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 1341A. Prohibition of judicial imposition or increase 
       of taxes

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     inferior court established by Congress shall have 
     jurisdiction to issue any remedy, order, injunction, writ, 
     judgment, or other judicial decree requiring the Federal 
     Government or any State or local government to impose any new 
     tax or to increase any existing tax or tax rate.
       ``(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit inferior 
     Federal courts from ordering duly authorized remedies, 
     otherwise within the jurisdiction of those courts, that may 
     require expenditures by a Federal, State, or local government 
     in any case in which those expenditures are necessary to 
     effectuate those remedies.
       ``(c) For purposes of this section, the term `tax' 
     includes--
       ``(1) personal income taxes;
       ``(2) real and personal property taxes;
       ``(3) sales and transfer taxes;
       ``(4) estate and gift taxes;
       ``(5) excise taxes;
       ``(6) user taxes;
       ``(7) corporate and business income taxes; and
       ``(8) licensing fees or taxes.''.
       (b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 1341 the following:

``1341A. Prohibition of judicial imposition or increase of taxes.''.

     SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply to 
     cases pending or commenced in a Federal court on or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Graham):
  S. 35. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
deduction for the long-term care insurance costs of all individuals who 
are not eligible to participate in employer-subsidized long-term care 
health plans; to the Committee on Finance.


       LONG-TERM CARE AFFORDABILITY AND AVAILABILITY ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Graham):
  S. 36. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for 
the establishment of a program under which long-term care insurance may 
be obtained by Federal employees and annuitants; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


      the american worker long-term care affordability act of 1999

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills that 
are an important first step in helping Americans prepare for their 
long-term care needs. The Long Term Care Affordability and Availability 
Act and the American Worker Long Term Care Affordability Act. I am 
pleased to have my colleague Senator Graham of Florida join me as a 
cosponsor of these two bills.
  Longer and healthier lives are a blessing and a testament to the 
progress and advances made by our society. However, all Americans must 
be alert and prepare for long-term care needs. The role of private 
long-term care insurance is critical in meeting this challenge.
  The financial challenges of health care in retirement are not new. 
Indeed, too many family caregivers can tell stories about financial 
devastation that was brought about by the serious long-term care needs 
of a family member. Because increasing numbers of Americans are likely 
to need long term care services, it is especially important to 
encourage planning today.
  Most families are not financially prepared when a loved one needs 
long-term care. When faced with nursing home costs that can run more 
than $40,000 a year, families often turn to Medicaid for help. In fact, 
Medicaid pays for nearly 2 of every 3 nursing home residents at a cost 
of more than $30 billion each year for nursing home costs. With the 
impending retirement of the Baby Boomers, it is imperative that 
Congress takes steps now to encourage all Americans to plan ahead for 
potential long-term care needs.

[[Page 770]]

  The Long Term Care and Affordability and Availability Act will allow 
Americans who do not currently have access to employer subsidized long-
term care plans to deduct the amount of such a plan from their taxable 
income. This bill will encourage planning and personal responsibility 
while helping to make long-term care insurance more affordable for 
middle class taxpayers.
  The American Worker Long-Term Care Affordability Act will establish a 
program under which long-term care insurance may be obtained by current 
and former employees of the federal government. This legislation will 
make long-term care insurance affordable to the Federal community by 
using the purchasing power of the federal government to assure quality, 
competition and choice.
  These measures will encourage Americans to be pro-active and prepare 
for their own long term care needs by making insurance more widely 
available and affordable. I urge my colleagues to support these bills.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the texts of the bills be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 35

       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 ``Long-Term Care Affordability 
     and Availability Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR LONG-TERM CARE HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS 
                   FOR INDIVIDUALS NOT ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN 
                   EMPLOYER-SUBSIDIZED LONG-TERM CARE HEALTH 
                   PLANS.

       (a) In General.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional 
     itemized deductions) is amended by redesignating section 222 
     as section 223 and by inserting after section 221 the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 222. QUALIFIED LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE COSTS.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of an individual, there 
     shall be allowed as a deduction an amount equal to the amount 
     of the eligible long-term care premiums (as defined in 
     section 213(d)(10)) paid during the taxable year for coverage 
     of the taxpayer and the spouse and dependents of the 
     taxpayer.
       ``(b) Limitation Based on Other Coverage.--Subsection (a) 
     shall not apply to any taxpayer for any calendar month for 
     which the taxpayer is eligible to participate in any 
     subsidized long-term care plan maintained by any employer of 
     the taxpayer or of the spouse of the taxpayer. For purposes 
     of the preceding sentence, the term `subsidized long-term 
     care plan' means a subsidized health plan which includes 
     primarily coverage for qualified long-term care services (as 
     defined in section 7702B(c)) or is a qualified long-term care 
     insurance contract (as defined in section 7702B(b)).
       ``(c) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Coordination with medical deduction.--Any amount paid 
     by a taxpayer for insurance to which subsection (a) applies 
     shall not be taken into account in computing the amount 
     allowable to the taxpayer as a deduction under section 
     213(a).
       ``(2) Deduction not allowed for self-employment tax 
     purposes.--The deduction allowable by reason of this section 
     shall not be taken into account in determining an 
     individual's net earnings from self-employment (within the 
     meaning of section 1402(a)) for purposes of chapter 2.''
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subparagraph (C) of section 162(l)(2) of such Code is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(C) Long-term care premiums.--No deduction shall be 
     allowed under this subsection for premiums on any qualified 
     long-term care insurance contract (as defined in section 
     7702B(b)).''
       (2) Subsection (a) of section 62 of such Code is amended by 
     inserting after paragraph (17) the following new paragraph:
       ``(18) Long-term care insurance costs of certain 
     individuals.--The deduction allowed by section 222.''
       (3) The table of sections for part VII of subchapter B of 
     chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the last item 
     and inserting the following new items:

``Sec. 222. Qualified long-term care insurance costs.
``Sec. 223. Cross reference.''

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1998.
                                  ____


                                 S. 36

       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 ``The American Worker Long-
     Term Care Affordability Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE.

       (a) In General.--Subpart G of part III of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

                 ``CHAPTER 90--LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE

``Sec.
``9001. Definitions.
``9002. Availability of insurance.
``9003. Participating carriers.
``9004. Administrative functions.
``9005. Coordination with State laws.
``9006. Commercial items.

     ``Sec. 9001. Definitions

       ``In this chapter:
       ``(1) The term `employee' has the meaning given such term 
     by section 8901, but does not include an individual employed 
     by the government of the District of Columbia.
       ``(2) The term `annuitant'--
       ``(A) means--
       ``(i) a former employee who, based on the service of that 
     individual, receives an annuity under subchapter III of 
     chapter 83, chapter 84, or another retirement system for 
     employees of the Government (disregarding title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) and any 
     retirement system established for employees described in 
     section 2105(c)); and
       ``(ii) any individual who receives an annuity under any 
     retirement system referred to in clause (i) (disregarding 
     those described parenthetically) as the surviving spouse of 
     an employee (including an amount under section 8442(b)(1)(A), 
     whether or not an annuity under section 8442(b)(1)(B) is also 
     payable) or of a former employee under clause (i); and
       ``(B) does not include a former employee of a Government 
     corporation excluded by regulation of the Office of Personnel 
     Management or the spouse of such a former employee.
       ``(3) The term `eligible relative', as used with respect to 
     an employee or annuitant, means each of the following:
       ``(A) The spouse of the employee or annuitant.
       ``(B) The father or mother of the employee or annuitant, or 
     an ancestor of either.
       ``(C) A stepfather or stepmother of the employee or 
     annuitant.
       ``(D) The father-in-law or mother-in-law of the employee or 
     annuitant.
       ``(E) A son or daughter of the employee or annuitant who is 
     at least 18 years of age.
       ``(F) A stepson or stepdaughter of the employee or 
     annuitant who is at least 18 years of age.
       ``(4) The term `Government' means the Government of the 
     United States, including an agency or instrumentality 
     thereof.
       ``(5) The term `group long-term care insurance' means group 
     long-term care insurance purchased by the Office of Personnel 
     Management under this chapter.
       ``(6) The term `individual long-term care insurance' means 
     any long-term care insurance offered under this chapter which 
     is not group long-term care insurance.
       ``(7) A carrier shall be considered to be a `qualified 
     carrier', with respect to a State, if it is licensed to issue 
     group or individual long-term care insurance (as the case may 
     be) under the laws of such State.
       ``(8) The term `qualified long-term care insurance 
     contract' has the meaning given such term by section 7702B of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(9) The term `State' means a State, the District of 
     Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the 
     Pacific Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 
     and any other territory or possession of the United States.

     ``Sec. 9002. Availability of insurance

       ``(a) The Office of Personnel Management shall establish 
     and administer a program through which employees and 
     annuitants may obtain group or individual long-term care 
     insurance for themselves, a spouse, or, to the extent 
     permitted under the terms of the contract of insurance 
     involved, any other eligible relative.
       ``(b) Long-term care insurance may not be offered under 
     this chapter unless--
       ``(1) the only insurance protection provided is coverage 
     under qualified long-term care insurance contracts; and
       ``(2) the insurance contract under which such coverage is 
     provided is issued by a qualified carrier.
       ``(c) In addition to the requirements otherwise applicable 
     under section 9001(8), in order to be considered a qualified 
     long-term care insurance contract for purposes of this 
     chapter, a contract shall be fully insured, whether through 
     reinsurance with other companies or otherwise.
       ``(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be considered to 
     require that long-term care insurance coverage be made 
     available in the case of any individual who would be 
     immediately benefit eligible.

     ``Sec. 9003. Participating carriers

       ``(a) Before the beginning of each year, the Office of 
     Personnel Management shall--

[[Page 771]]

       ``(1) identify each carrier through whom any long-term care 
     insurance may be obtained under this chapter during such 
     year; and
       ``(2) prepare a list of the carriers identified under 
     paragraph (1), and a summary description of the insurance 
     obtainable under this chapter from each.
       ``(b) In order to carry out its responsibilities under 
     subsection (a), the Office shall annually specify the 
     timetable (including any application deadlines) and other 
     procedures that shall be followed by carriers seeking to be 
     allowed to offer long-term care insurance under this chapter 
     during the following year.
       ``(c) Before the beginning of each year, the Office shall 
     in a timely manner--
       ``(1) publish in the Federal Register the list (and summary 
     description) prepared under subsection (a) for such year; and
       ``(2) make available to each individual eligible to obtain 
     long-term care insurance under this chapter such information, 
     in a form acceptable to the Office after consultation with 
     the carrier, as may be necessary to enable the individual to 
     exercise an informed choice among the various options 
     available under this chapter.
       ``(d)(1) The Office shall arrange to have the appropriate 
     individual or individuals receive--
       ``(A) a copy of any policy of insurance obtained under this 
     chapter; or
       ``(B) in the case of group long-term care insurance, a 
     certificate setting forth the benefits to which an individual 
     is entitled, to whom the benefits are payable, and the 
     procedures for obtaining benefits, and summarizing the 
     provisions of the policy principally affecting the individual 
     or individuals involved.
       ``(2) Any certificate issued under paragraph (1)(B) shall 
     be issued instead of the certificate which the insurance 
     company would otherwise be required to issue.

     ``Sec. 9004. Administrative functions

       ``(a) Except as provided in section 9003, the sole 
     functions of the Office of Personnel Management under this 
     chapter shall be as follows:
       ``(1) To provide reasonable opportunity (consisting of not 
     less than one continuous 30-day period each year) for 
     eligible employees and annuitants to obtain long-term care 
     insurance coverage under this chapter.
       ``(2) To provide for a means by which the cost of any long-
     term care insurance coverage obtained under this chapter may 
     be paid for through withholdings from the pay or annuity of 
     the employee or annuitant involved.
       ``(3) To contract for a qualified long-term care insurance 
     contract (in the case of group long-term care insurance) with 
     each qualified carrier that offers such insurance, if such 
     carrier submits a timely application under section 9003(b) 
     and complies with such other procedural rules as the Office 
     may prescribe.
       ``(b) Nothing in this chapter shall be considered to permit 
     or require the Office to--
       ``(1) prevent from being offered under this chapter any 
     individual long-term care insurance under a qualified 
     contract; or
       ``(2) prescribe or negotiate over the benefits to be 
     offered, or any of the terms or conditions under which any 
     such benefits shall be offered, under this chapter.

     ``Sec. 9005. Coordination with State laws

       ``(a) The provisions of any contract under this chapter for 
     group long-term care insurance may include provisions to 
     supersede and preempt any provisions of State or local law 
     described in subsection (b), or any regulation issued 
     thereunder.
       ``(b) This subsection applies to any provision of law which 
     in effect carries out the same policy as section 5 of the 
     long-term care insurance model Act, promulgated by the 
     National Association of Insurance Commissioners (as adopted 
     as of September 1997).

     ``Sec. 9006. Commercial items

       ``For purposes of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.), a long-term care insurance 
     contract under this chapter shall be considered a commercial 
     item, as defined in section 4(12) of such Act.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of chapters for part 
     III of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end of subpart G the following:

``90. Long-Term Care Insurance..................................9001''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The Office of Personnel Management shall take all necessary 
     actions to ensure that long-term care insurance coverage 
     under chapter 90 of title 5, United States Code, (as added by 
     this Act) may be obtained in time to take effect beginning on 
     the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on 
     or after January 1, 2000.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley in 
introducing legislation that will allow the Federal Government to be a 
role model in helping Americans prepare for retirement security.
  The issue is long term care insurance.
  Several key facts highlights the importance of long term care 
insurance.
  It is estimated that the majority of women and one-third of men who 
reach the age of 60 will need nursing home care before the end of life. 
Many of the baby boom generation first face this issue when they deal 
with their aging parents' needs.
  Long term care is one of the most important retirement security 
issues facing us today. According to a 1997 survey sponsored by the 
National Council on the Aging, more Americans (69 percent) were worried 
about how to pay for long term care than were worried about how they 
would pay for their retirement (56 percent). This level of concern was 
true for all age groups and income levels among those surveyed.
  Their concerns are well-founded. In 1995 the average cost of nursing 
home care in the United States was $37,000 per year. In some urban 
areas of the country, that cost can reach $70,000 per year.
  Medicare provides short-term care coverage, but the average nursing 
home stay is two and one-half years. In fact, Medicare pays for only 
five percent of national nursing home costs.
  Not all long term care occurs in nursing homes--85 percent of nursing 
home care is nonskilled care. Again, Medicare does not cover non-
skilled care, so all of these costs must be covered by the patient and 
his or her family members.
  Medicaid will provide nursing home and some nonskilled care coverage, 
but an individual must be extremely low income, or become low income, 
to qualify for Medicaid. This program currently pays for over half of 
nursing home expenses in the United States. But who wants to see their 
lifetime savings, and their children's inheritance, wiped out to pay 
for the cost of a catastrophic long term illness?
  The end of life is not a pleasant subject for any family to discuss. 
But the emotional decisions involved are made easier by planning ahead 
and investing in long term care insurance. That kind of forethought 
provides needed options at a very vulnerable time.
  Although many companies are considering offering this insurance to 
their employees, as of 1996 only 13.2 percent of long-term care plans 
were employer-sponsored.
  Today, Senator Grassley and I are moving the Federal Government into 
a leadership role by creating a model long term care insurance program 
for Federal employees. We hope that our legislation will inspire 
private companies to increase the long term care options available to 
their employees.
  Under our plan, private companies will have the opportunity to 
compete to provide long term care insurance to Federal employees. This 
does not mean a high cost to taxpayers; premiums will be fully paid by 
federal employees. However, by pooling the numbers of workers in the 
Federal Government, our plan will encourage reduced group rates.
  Only plans qualified under the Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act of 1996 may offer this insurance to Federal workers 
through our legislation. Beyond that, we will let the marketplace 
determine the cost and services of plans available for purchase.
  Flexibility is important in this relatively young industry as 
insurance companies are still in the process of determining how to most 
effectively provide this product. Competition among the various 
carriers, group discounts and volume of sales will keep these premiums 
affordable.
  Eleven million Americans, including Federal employees and retirees, 
their spouses, parents, and in-laws would be eligible for long term 
care insurance under our proposal. This bill is just a first step, but 
an important one.
  I ask for your support as we continue to improve retirement security 
for all Americans.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 37. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
repeal the restriction on payment for certain hospital discharges to 
post-acute care imposed by section 4407 of the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page 772]]




              hospital transfer penalty repeal act of 1999

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I have introduced the Hospital 
Transfer Penalty Repeal Act of 1999. This legislation would repeal the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA)'s hospital transfer penalty. This law 
punishes hospitals that make use of the full continuum of care and 
discourages them from moving patients to the most appropriate levels of 
post-acute care. I ask my colleagues to spend a few minutes learning 
about this issue, because I believe that if they do, they will come to 
see the need for repeal.
  The current hospital prospective payment system is based on the 
average length of stay for a given diagnosis. In some cases, patients 
stay in the hospital longer than the average and in other cases their 
stay is shorter. Historically, a hospital has been reimbursed based 
upon an average length of stay regardless of whether the patient 
remained in the hospital a day less than the average or a day more than 
the average.
  Under the Balanced Budget Act transfer provision, however, this is no 
longer the case. If a patient in one of ten specified diagnosis-related 
groups (DRGs) is released earlier than the national average length of 
stay for that DRG, the hospital does not receive its full prospective 
payment. Instead, it receives only a smaller per-diem payment.
  This policy penalizes facilities that transfer patients from the 
hospital to a more appropriate level of care earlier than the average 
length of stay. It encourages hospitals to ignore the clinical needs of 
patients and keep them in the most expensive care setting for a longer 
period of time. In short, it offers an incentive for hospitals to 
provide an unnecessary level of care, for an unnecessary length of 
time.
  The transfer policy is particularly hard on hospitals in low-cost 
states like Iowa. Because Iowa's hospitals practice efficient medicine, 
they have average lengths of stay well below the national average. 
These hospitals will be hit especially hard. This kind of perverse 
incentive is part of the problem with Medicare, not part of the 
solution.
  In addition to the irrational incentives this policy creates, 
administering it is simply maddening for providers. As a knowledgeable 
Iowa constituent, Joe LeValley of North Iowa Mercy Health System, has 
pointed out, the law creates conflicting incentives that make clinical 
management of patients a baffling experience. Medicare now expects 
physicians to move patients to the most cost-effective level of care as 
quickly as possible--unless those patients have a condition in one of 
these ten DRG's, in which case Medicare wants the physician to keep 
them in the hospital. Is it any wonder that physicians and hospital 
administrators are frustrated with Medicare?
  In fact, isn't it physicians, not hospital administrators, who should 
be making decisions about patient care settings? If we think that 
doctors should be determining the appropriate location for a patient, 
it seems absurd to force the hospital into that role. But the transfer 
penalty does exactly that.
  In addition, the law holds hospitals accountable for the actions of 
patients that are no longer under their care. In some cases, patients 
are not admitted to post-acute care directly from the hospital, and the 
hospital may not know that the patient is receiving such care, let 
alone steer the patient to it. The law thus sets hospitals up for 
accusations of fraud due to events that are beyond their control.
  I understand that there are valid grounds for concern about hospitals 
moving patients to lower levels of care sooner than is clinically 
appropriate, simply in order to game the reimbursement system. That is 
unacceptable conduct, and we do need to attack it. I am open to 
discussions on possible alternatives to outright repeal of the transfer 
penalty, if these bad apples are the ones targeted. But we need to make 
sure we don't punish all hospitals--especially the most efficient--for 
the sins of a few.
  This transfer penalty is a serious roadblock to the provision of 
appropriate and efficient care. Its repeal will help ensure that 
logical coordinated care remains a primary goal of the Medicare 
program.
  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. 37

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF RESTRICTION ON MEDICARE PAYMENT FOR 
                   CERTAIN HOSPITAL DISCHARGES TO POST-ACUTE CARE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(5) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)), as amended by section 4407 of 
     the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (I)(ii), by striking ``not taking in 
     account the effect of subparagraph (J),'', and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (J).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Mack, and Mrs. Hutchison:)
  S. 38. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phase out 
the estate and gift taxes over a 10-year period; to the Committee on 
Finance.


             ESTATE AND GIFT TAX RATE REDUCTION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that I feel is 
of vital importance to farmers and family business owners, the Estate 
and Gift Tax Rate Reduction Act of 1999. I am pleased to be joined by 
my colleagues Senators Mack and Hutchison.
  This bill is based on legislation I introduced last year, S. 2318. 
Unfortunately, the 105th Congress adjourned before we could debate and 
pass this bill. Since then, I have heard from numerous Coloradans and 
national organizations and am fully aware that the problems the bill 
would correct still exist.
  Estate and gift taxes remain a burden of American families, 
particularly those who pursue the American dream of owning their own 
business. This is because family-owned businesses and farms are hit 
with the highest tax rate when they are handed down to descendants--
often immediately following the death of a loved one. These taxes, and 
the financial burdens and difficulties they create come at the worst 
possible time. Making a terrible situation worse is the fact that the 
rate of this estate tax is crushing, reaching as high as 55 percent for 
the highest bracket. That's higher than even the highest income tax 
rate bracket of 39 percent. Furthermore, the tax is due as soon as the 
business is turned over to the heir, allowing no time for financial 
planning or the setting aside of money to pay the tax bills. Estate and 
gift taxes right now are one of the leading reasons why the number of 
family-owned farms and businesses are declining; the burden of this tax 
is just too much.
  This tax sends the troubling message that families should either sell 
the business while they are still alive, in order to spare their 
descendants this huge tax after their passing, or run-down the value of 
the business, so that it won't make it into their higher tax brackets. 
Whichever the case may be, it hardly seems to encourage private 
investment and initiative, which have always been such a strong part of 
our American heritage.
  That is why I again introduce this bill. It will gradually eliminate 
this tax by phasing it out--reducing the amount of the tax 5% each 
year, beginning with the highest rate bracket 55%, until the tax rate 
reaches zero. Several states have already adopted similar plans, and I 
believe we ought to follow their example. We need to change the message 
we are sending to farmers and family business owners. Leading 
organizations agree, and have endorsed this legislation. In fact, over 
100 organizations, like the National Federation of Independent Business 
and the Farm Bureau, have joined together to form the Family Business 
Estate Tax Coalition, which strongly endorses the bill.
  Mr. President, this tax should be eliminated across the board, and I 
ask my colleagues' help in working to achieve that goal.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
letters from the American Farm Bureau

[[Page 773]]

Federation and Family Business Estate Tax Coalition be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 38

       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 ``Estate and Gift Tax Rate 
     Reduction Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds and declares that--
       (1) estate and gift tax rates, which reach as high as 55 
     percent of a decedent's taxable estate, are in most cases 
     substantially in excess of the tax rates imposed on the same 
     amount of regular income and capital gains income; and
       (2) a reduction in estate and gift tax rates to a level 
     more comparable with the rates of tax imposed on regular 
     income and capital gains income will make the estate and gift 
     tax less confiscatory and mitigate its negative impacts on 
     American families and businesses.

     SEC. 3. PHASEOUT OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.

       (a) Repeal of Estate and Gift Taxes.--Subtitle B of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to estate and gift 
     taxes) is repealed effective with respect to estates of 
     decedents dying, and gifts made, after December 31, 2009.
       (b) Phaseout of Tax.--Subsection (c) of section 2001 of 
     such Code (relating to imposition and rate of tax) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Phaseout of tax.--In the case of estates of decedents 
     dying, and gifts made, during any calendar year after 1999 
     and before 2010--
       ``(A) In general.--The tentative tax under this subsection 
     shall be determined by using a table prescribed by the 
     Secretary (in lieu of using the table contained in paragraph 
     (1)) which is the same as such table; except that--
       ``(i) each of the rates of tax shall be reduced (but not 
     below zero) by the number of percentage points determined 
     under subparagraph (B), and
       ``(ii) the amounts setting forth the tax shall be adjusted 
     to the extent necessary to reflect the adjustments under 
     clause (i).
       ``(B) Percentage points of reduction.--

                                                          The number of
``For calendar year:                              percentage points is:
  2000...........................................................5 ....

  2001..........................................................10 ....

  2002..........................................................15 ....

  2003..........................................................20 ....

  2004..........................................................25 ....

  2005..........................................................30 ....

  2006..........................................................35 ....

  2007..........................................................40 ....

  2008..........................................................45 ....

  2009..........................................................50.....

       ``(C) Coordination with paragraph (2).--Paragraph (2) shall 
     be applied by reducing the 55 percent percentage contained 
     therein by the number of percentage points determined for 
     such calendar year under subparagraph (B).
       ``(D) Coordination with credit for state death taxes.--
     Rules similar to the rules of subparagraph (A) shall apply to 
     the table contained in section 2011(b) except that the number 
     of percentage points referred to in subparagraph (A)(i) shall 
     be determined under the following table:

                                                          The number of
``For calendar year:                              percentage points is:
  2000......................................................1\1/2\ ....

  2001...........................................................3 ....

  2002......................................................4\1/2\ ....

  2003...........................................................6 ....

  2004......................................................7\1/2\ ....

  2005...........................................................9 ....

  2006.....................................................10\1/2\ ....

  2007..........................................................12 ....

  2008.....................................................13\1/2\ ....

  2009........................................................15.''....

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to estates of decedents dying, and gifts made, 
     after December 31, 1999.
                                  ____



                              American Farm Bureau Federation,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 1998.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: Family farm businesses are the 
     mainstay of a food and fiber industry that provides more than 
     21 million people with jobs and allows Americans to spend 
     less than 10 percent of their incomes on food.
       Estate taxes threaten family farms and ranches and the 
     contributions they make to rural communities because farm 
     heirs often have to sell business assets to borrow money to 
     pay death taxes that reach as high as 55 percent. This can 
     destroy the financial health of the enterprise and put 
     farmers and ranchers out of business.
       Changes in estate tax laws are needed to foster the 
     transfer of farms and ranches from one generation to the 
     next. Farm Bureau believes that estate taxes should be 
     repealed and supports your legislation. S. 2318, that reduces 
     estate tax rates by 5 percent a year until the tax is 
     eliminated.
       Thank you for introducing S. 2318.
           Sincerely,
                                               Richard W. Newpher,
     Executive Director, Washington Office.
                                  ____

                                            Family Business Estate


                                                Tax Coalition,

                                                     May 14, 1998.
     Hon. Bill Archer,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Archer: On behalf of the more than 6 
     million members represented by the 100-plus organizations of 
     the Family Business Estate Tax Coalition, we are writing to 
     urge you to support the estate tax rate reduction and ten 
     year phaseout legislation introduced by Representatives 
     Jennifer Dunn and John Tanner.
       Death tax relief, which is pro-business, pro-jobs, pro-
     family, and pro-economy, is of the utmost importance. What 
     has become clear to economists and policy makers is that the 
     social and economic costs of the estate tax far exceed the 
     revenue it produces for the government.
       We applaud Representatives Dunn and Tanner for their 
     straightforward, fair, and financially responsible approach 
     to eliminating an incredibly onerous tax. Join them in 
     recognizing that death should not be a taxable event.
           Sincerely,
                                               The Family Business
                                             Estate Tax Coalition.


                the family business estate tax coalition

       Air Conditioning Contractors of America.
       Alliance for Affordable Healthcare.
       American Alliance of Family Business.
       American Bakers Association.
       American Consult Engineers Council.
       American Dental Association.
       American Family Business Institute.
       American Farm Bureau Federation.
       American Forest & Paper Association.
       American Horse Council.
       American Hotel & Motel Association.
       American Institute of CPA's.
       American International Automobile Dealers Association.
       American Sheep Industry Association.
       American Small Businesses Association.
       American Soybean Association.
       American Supply Association.
       American Trucking Associations.
       American Vintners Association.
       American Warehouse Association.
       American Wholesale Marketers Association.
       Amway Corporation.
       Associated Builders and Contractors.
       Associated Equipment Distributor.
       Associated General Contractors of America.
       Associated Specialty Contractors.
       Association for Manufacturing Technology.
       Committee to Preserve the American Family Business.
       Communicating for Agriculture.
       Families Against Confiscatory Estate and Inheritance Taxes.
       Farm Credit Council.
       Florists' Transworld Delivery Association.
       Food Distributors International.
       Food Marketing Institute.
       Forest Industries Council on Taxation.
       Guest & Associates.
       Hallmark Cards, Inc.
       Independent Bakers Association.
       Independent Bankers Association of America.
       Independent Forest Products Association.
       Independent Insurance Agents of America.
       Independent Petroleum Association of America.
       Institute of Certified Financial Planners.
       International Council of Shopping Centers.
       Lake States Lumber Association.
       Land Trust Alliance.
       Manufacturing Jewelers and Silversmiths Association.
       Marine Retailers Association of America.
       National Association of Beverage Retailers.
       National Association of Convenience Stores.
       National Association of Home Builders.
       National Association of Manufacturers.
       National Association of Music Merchants.
       National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling 
     Contractors.
       National Association of Realtors.
       National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
       National Association of Temporary and Staffing Services.
       National Association of the Remodeling Industry.
       National Association of Wheat Growers.
       National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.
       National Automatic Merchandising Association.
       National Automobile Dealers Association.
       National Beer Wholesalers Association.
       National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
       National Corn Growers Association.
       National Cotton Council of America.
       National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
       National Electrical Contractors Association.
       National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
       National Farmers Union.
       National Federation of Independent Business.

[[Page 774]]

       National Funeral Directors Association.
       National Grange.
       National Grocers Association.
       National Hardwood Lumber Association.
       National Home Furnishings Association.
       National Licensed Beverage Association.
       National Marine Manufacturers Association.
       National Milk Producers Federation.
       National Newspaper Association.
       National Pork Producers Council.
       National Pre-Cast Concrete Association.
       National Restaurant Association.
       National Retail Federation.
       National Roofing Contractors Association.
       National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association.
       National Small Business United.
       National Telephone Cooperative Association.
       National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association.
       National Tooling & Machining Association.
       Newsletter Publishers Association.
       Newspaper Association of America.
       North American Equipment Dealers Association.
       Northwest Woodland Owners Council.
       Petroleum Marketers Association of America.
       Printing Industries of America, Inc.
       Promotional Products Association International.
       Safeguard America's Family Enterprises.
       Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National 
     Association.
       Small Business Legislative Council.
       Society of American Florists.
       Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association.
       Tax Foundation.
       Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association.
       Tire Association of North America.
       United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association.
       U.S. Apple Association.
       U.S. Business & Industrial Council.
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
       U.S. Telephone Association.
       Washington Council, P.C.
       Wine and Spirits Wholesalers.
       Wine Institute.
       Wood Machinery Manufacturers Association.


                                         Colorado Farm Bureau,

                                     Denver, CO, January 18, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Mr. Campbell: The Colorado Farm Bureau, the state's largest 
     farming and ranching organization, appreciates your 
     sponsorship of the Estate and Gift Tax Rate Reduction Act. It 
     is our understanding that the bill would amend the Internal 
     Revenue Service Code of 1986 to phase out the estate and gift 
     tax completely over a ten year period.
       Farm Bureau policy supports the repeal of the federal 
     estate tax and expanding eligibility for the family business 
     estate tax exemption by reducing and simplifying requirements 
     and restrictions. In 1997, the American Farm Bureau 
     Federation delivered over 20,000 letters to Congress asking 
     for the abolishment of the estate tax.
       We believe that estate taxes are a major reason for keeping 
     young farmers and ranchers from continuing on the farm or 
     ranch. Many times a son or daughter cannot pay the 
     exorbitantly high estate tax and are forced to sell all or 
     part of the land to developers. First and foremost this is a 
     threat to our inexpensive food supply. Secondly, this would 
     threaten wildlife habitat and open space. This bill will 
     allow agricultural operations to continue from one generation 
     to the next--like it has for hundreds of years. No person 
     should have to visit the mortuary and IRS agent in the same 
     week.
       Thank you for your continued support of agriculture.
           Sincerely,
                                              Roger Bill Mitchell,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. STEVENS:
  S. 39. A bill to provide a national medal for public safety officers 
who act with extraordinary valor above the call of duty, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                  the public safety medal of valor act

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have all been pleased with the recent 
decline in crime in many areas of the country, and today I am 
introducing a bill to acknowledge the great commitment and sacrifice 
public safety officers at every level have made to that decline. From 
responding to traffic accidents, apprehending violent criminals, 
fighting fires, combating domestic terrorism, assisting people during 
natural disasters--not to mention performing the functions many of us 
take for granted--public safety officers are essential to the well-
being and stability of the United States.
  While public safety accomplishments often go unrecognized, the 
selfless service of those who work each day to preserve the peace and 
improve safety in our communities continues. This past year were 
reminded of the tremendous sacrifices of this American mainstay when 
Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson gave their lives defending the 
peace and protecting lives in our nation's Capitol. In fact, since 1988 
over 700 law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty, 
another 629 have been killed in duty-related accidents, and over 
600,000 have been assaulted. We owe a tremendous debt to these heroes 
and to their families who have made such a tremendous sacrifice for the 
rest of us.
  In the past ten years we've had earthquakes, flooding, hurricanes, 
vast fires, record cold spells, and numerous other natural disasters. 
Throughout those natural disasters, Americans from around the country 
counted on firemen, emergency medical technicians, emergency services 
personnel, and other public safety personnel from all levels of 
government. The many peaceful moments and days that we enjoy between 
these disasters and tragedies are the product of the vigilance, 
dedication, and hard work of those dedicated to the protection of the 
public.
  In recognition and honor of these great public servants, I am 
introducing the Public Safety Medal of Valor Act. This Act establishes 
the highest national recognition of valor for public safety personnel 
for acts above and beyond the call of duty.
  Under this legislation, an 11-member Medal Review Board selected by 
the Congress and by the President will consider nominations of public 
safety officers and select recipients of the medal. No more than 10 
Public Safety Medal of Valor recipients will be selected in one year. I 
call on all of the members of the Senate and House to join me in 
support of this important measure to at last provide national 
recognition to the heroes in the field of public safety.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL:
  S. 47. A bill to establish a commission to study the impact on voter 
turnout of making the deadline for filing federal income tax returns 
conform to the date of federal elections; to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration.


             voter turnout enhancement study commission act

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Voter Turnout 
Enhancement Study (VoTES) Commission Act, a bill designed to promote 
fiscal responsibility while helping to motivate more Americans to get 
to the polls on Election Day.
  Mr. President, when we balanced the unified budget last year, we did 
so by taxing and spending at a level of about $1.72 trillion. That is a 
level of spending that is 25 percent higher than when President Clinton 
took office just six years ago. Our government now spends the 
equivalent of $6,700 for every man, woman, and child in the country 
every year. That is the equivalent of nearly $27,000 for the average 
family of four. But all of that spending comes at a tremendous cost to 
hard-working taxpayers.
  The Tax Foundation estimates that the medium income family in America 
saw its combined federal, state, and local tax bill climb to 37.6 
percent of income in 1997--up from 37.3 percent the year before. That 
is more than the average family spends on food, clothing, shelter, and 
transportation combined. Put another way, in too many families, one 
parent is working to put food on the table, while the other is working 
almost full time just to pay the bill for the government bureaucracy.
  In fact, the tax burden imposed on the American people hit a 
peacetime high of 19.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1997 
and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is continuing to 
rise--to 20.5 percent in 1998 and 20.6 percent in 1999. That will be 
higher than any year since 1945, and it would be only the third and 
fourth years in our nation's entire history that revenues have exceeded 
20 percent of national income. Notably, the first two times revenues 
broke the 20 percent mark the economy tipped into recession.
  Already, economists are beginning to project slower economic growth 
in coming years. Barring any further shocks from abroad, growth for 
1999 to

[[Page 775]]

2003 is estimated at about two percent. The heavy tax burden may not be 
the only reasons for slow growth, but it is a significant factor. 
Consider that economic growth avenged 3.9 percent annually during the 
period after the Reagan tax cuts and before the 1990 tax increase.
  I am convinced that the tax burden is growing, in part, because so 
much of it is obscured from the view of the taxpayers. Withholding, for 
example, reduces the visibility and minimizes the pain of making large 
tax payments. FICA taxes paid by an employer on behalf of an employee 
never show up on a worker's pay stub at all, even though they reduce 
wages dollar for dollar. By the time Election Day could hardly be 
farther away from April 15.
  If the visibility of the tax burden were increased, people might be 
more inclined to get to the polls. Move the deadline for filing income-
tax returns from April to November and we could give people a reason to 
vote by focusing their attention on the role of government--and how 
much it actually costs them--on the single most important day of the 
year. Moving Tax Day to Election Day would probably result in more 
change in Washington than anything else we could do. Moreover, 
maximizing voter turnout is the best way to ensure that government 
officials heed the will of the people and make sound public policy.
  The bill I am introducing today would provide for a thoughtful and 
thorough analysis of a change in the tax-filing deadline from April to 
November, its potential effect on voter turnout, as well as any 
economic impact it might have. The bill explicitly requires that an 
independent commission conduct a cost-benefit analysis--a requirement 
that Congress would be wise to impose routinely on legislative 
initiatives to separate the good ideas from the bad, and save taxpayers 
a lot of money in the process. A number of other cost limiting 
provisions have been included to protect taxpayers' interests.
  While just about every day of the year is celebrated by special 
interest groups around the country for the government largesee they 
receive, the taxpayers--the silent majority--have only one day of the 
year to focus on what that largesse means to them--how much it costs 
them--and that is Tax Day. I believe that it ought to coincide with 
Election Day so people can clearly choose between candidates who 
support higher taxes and more government control, and candidates who 
favor lower taxes and the right of people to decide for themselves how 
to spend their own money.
  I invite my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this initiative, 
and 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. 47

       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 ``Voter Turnout Enhancement 
     Study Commission Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) The right of citizens of the United States to vote is a 
     fundamental right.
       (2) It is the duty of federal, state, and local governments 
     to promote the exercise of that right to vote to the greatest 
     extent possible.
       (3) The power to tax is a power that citizens of the United 
     States only guardedly vest in their elected representatives 
     to the federal, state, and local governments.
       (4) The only regular contacts most Americans have with 
     their government are the filing of their personal income tax 
     returns and their participation in federal, state, and local 
     elections.
       (5) About 115 million individual income tax returns were 
     filed in 1998, but only about 70 million Americans cast votes 
     in that year's congressional elections.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the Voter Turnout Enhancement Study Commission 
     (hereafter in this Act referred to as the `Commission').
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of nine 
     members of whom--
       (A) 3 shall be appointed by the President;
       (B) 3 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate; and
       (C) 3 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be 
     appointed no later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and serve for the life of the 
     Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect 
     its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as the 
     original appointment.
       (d) Compensation.--
       (1) Rates of pay.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     members of the Commission shall serve without pay.
       (2) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Commission shall 
     receive travel expenses, include per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (e) Initial Meeting.--No later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
       (f) Meetings.--After the initial meeting, the Commission 
     shall meet at the call of the Chairman.
       (g) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
     hold hearings.
       (h) Chairman and Vice Chairman.--The Commission shall 
     select a Chairman and Vice Chairman from among its members.

     SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a thorough 
     study of all matters relating to the propriety of conforming 
     the annual filing date for federal income tax returns with 
     the date for holding biennial federal elections.
       (2) Matters studied.--The matters studied by the Commission 
     shall include--
       (A) whether establishment of a single date on which 
     individuals can fulfill their obligations of citizenship as 
     both electors and taxpayers would increase participation in 
     federal, state, and local elections; and
       (B) a cost benefit analysis of any change in tax filing 
     deadlines.
       (b) Report.--No later than 12 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit a report 
     to the President and the Congress which shall contain a 
     detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the 
     Commission, together with its recommendations for such 
     legislation and administrative actions as it considers 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such information as the Commission considers 
     advisable to carry out the purposes of this Act.
       (b) Information To Be Gathered.--The Commission shall 
     obtain information from sources as it deems appropriate, 
     including, but not limited to, taxpayers and their 
     representatives, Governors, state and federal election 
     officials, and the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue 
     Service.

     SEC. 6. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate upon the submission of the 
     report under section 4.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. STEVENS:
  S. 49. A bill to amend the wetlands program under the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act to provide credit for the low wetlands loss rate 
in Alaska and recognize the significant extent of wetlands conservation 
in Alaska property owners, and to ease the burden on overly regulated 
Alaskan cities, boroughs, owners, and to ease the burden on overly 
regulated Alaskan cities, boroughs, municipalities, and villages; to 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, according to the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service more than 221,000,000 acres of wetlands existed at the 
time of Colonial America in the area that is now the contiguous United 
States. Since then 117,000,000 of those areas, roughly 53 percent, have 
been filled, drained, or otherwise removed from wetland status.
  In the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly known 
as the Clean Water Act, Congress broadly expanded Federal jurisdiction 
over wetlands by modifying the definition of ``navigable waters'' as 
used in the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act. The 1899 Act established the 
basis for regulating disposition of dredge spoils in navigable waters. 
The 1972 Act expanded that basis to encompass all ``water of the United 
States''.
  In 1975, a United States district court ordered the Army Corps of 
Engineers to publish revised regulations concerning their program to 
implement section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

[[Page 776]]

Since then, the Courts have further expanded upon the Corps's authority 
to include isolated wetlands and have issued decisions that effectively 
constrain agency decision makers to act only to promote conservation, 
often at the expense of sound economic development. This expansion of 
Congressional intent has also formed the basis for burdensome 
intrusions on the property rights of many Alaskans, Alaskan Native 
Corporations, and the State of Alaska.
  The erosion of agency discretion clearly undermines the Corps of 
Engineers' ability to implement sound public policy in my State. Over 
the 100 years since the Rivers and Harbors Act, their ``Section 404'' 
regulatory program has become unnecessarily inflexible and unresponsive 
to common sense. In recognizing the value of preserving and restoring 
wetlands where appropriate, Congress intended to leave appropriate 
discretion to agency managers to balance competing public values. That 
intent has lost flexibility with age. Today the lack of regulatory 
flexibility threatens to destroy the economic health of many Alaskans. 
We are being over-regulated to the point of economic strangulation.
  According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
approximately 170,200,000 acres of wetlands existed in Alaska in the 
1780's and approximately 170,000,000 acres of wetlands exist now. That 
represents a loss of less than one-tenth of 1 percent through the 
combined effects of either human or natural processes.
  Alaska contains more wetlands than all of the other States combined. 
Fully 75 percent of the non-mountainous areas of Alaska are wetlands. 
Yet we are regulating these vast wetlands in Alaska to the same strict 
levels as all the other states, without regard to either special 
economic hardships or the unnecessary federal expense this causes.
  Ninety-eight percent of all Alaskan communities, including 200 of the 
226 remote villages in Alaska, which incidently are dispersed over 1/
5th of the land mass of the United States, are located in or adjacent 
to wetlands. To promote the economic self sufficiency of these remote 
communities, about 43,000,000 acres of land were granted to Alaska 
Natives through regional and village corporations.
  These Native allotments were intended to be available for use. 
However between 45 percent and 100 percent of each Native corporation's 
land is categorized as wetlands. Therefore development of these Native 
lands and basic community infrastructure is delayed or even prevented 
by an ever tightening regulatory regime designed to protect an 
excessively abundant resource in Alaska because it is scarce elsewhere 
in the Union.
  Naturally Alaska villages, municipalities, boroughs, city 
governments, and Native organizations are increasingly frustrated with 
the constraints of the wetlands regulatory program because it 
interferes with the location of community centers, airports, sanitation 
systems, roads, schools, industrial areas, and other critical community 
infrastructure.
  The same is true of State-owned lands. 104,000,000 acres of land were 
granted to the State of Alaska at statehood for purposes of economic 
development. Nowhere is flexibility more appropriate than on these 
lands. What minimal identifiable environmental benefits expected from 
the ever tightened regulation of wetlands are certainly not justified 
in Alaska.
  The Federal Government already has vast wetlands holdings in Alaska 
under the protection of a variety of Federal land management programs. 
In Alaska we have 62 percent of all federally designated wilderness 
lands, 70 percent of all Federal park lands, and 90 percent of all 
Federal refuge lands, thus providing protection against use or 
degradation for approximately 60,000,000 acres of wetlands. National 
policies intended to achieve `no net loss' of wetlands reflect a 
response to the 53 percent loss of the wetlands base in the 48 
contiguous States, but do not take into account the large percentage of 
conserved wetlands in Alaska.
  Only 12 percent of Alaska's wetlands are privately owned, compared to 
74 percent of the wetlands in the 48 contiguous States. Wetlands 
regulation designed to protect a large majority of a dwindling resource 
are clearly too strict where they would only apply to a small 
percentage of a vase resource. Unfortunately, Federal agencies no 
longer enjoy the discretion to modify their program to address these 
special circumstances. As a result, individual landowners in Alaska 
have lost up to 97 percent of their property value and Alaskan 
communities have lost a significant portion of their tax base due to 
wetlands regulations.
  Expansion of the wetlands regulatory program in this manager is 
beyond what the Congress intended when it passed the Clean Water Act. 
In Alaska, it has placed unnecessary economic and administrative 
burdens on private property owners, small businesses, city governments, 
State government, farmers, ranchers, and others, while providing 
negligible environmental benefits.
  It is time to stop using the wrong regulatory tools. For a State, 
such as Alaska, with substantial conserved wetlands, my bill provides 
much needed relief from the excessive burdens of the current cumbersome 
federal wetlands regulatory program. It relaxes the most stringent 
aspects of wetlands regulation, without dismantling agency discretion 
to regulate where necessary. This bill restores common sense and cost 
effectiveness without loss of high value wetlands.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Murray, 
        Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs Lincoln, Ms. 
        Snowe, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Reid, Mr. Reed, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
        Inouye, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Robb, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Wellstone, and 
        Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 51. A bill to reauthorize the Federal programs to prevent violence 
against women, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                     violence against women act II

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Violence Against 
Women Act II. I am pleased to be joined by several of my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle who are co-sponsoring this legislation. My 
colleagues joining me today include Senators Specter, Boxer, Murray, 
Mikulski, Landrieu, Feinstein, Lincoln, Snowe, Lautenberg, Reid, Reed, 
Dodd, Inouye, Kerry, Robb, Kennedy, Wellstone, and Schumer.
  Nearly 9 years ago when I first introduced the Violence Against Women 
Act, it was by no means a given that this body would consider it, let 
alone pass it. Although it may seem hard to believe now, at that time--
less than a decade ago--few thought it either appropriate or necessary 
for national legislation to be enacted to confront the very serious 
problem of domestic violence and sexual assault.
  The road to enactment was a long one. As Chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee in the early 1990's, I convened several hearings on the bill 
and released many reports on the problem of violence against women. 
Three times I convinced the Judiciary Committee to favorably report the 
bill to the full Senate. Twice, I had to re-introduce the bill.
  Nearly 4 years passed from the original Violence Against Women Act's 
first introduction before the Senate fully considered it. But at last--
in September of 1994--the Violence Against Women Act became the law of 
our land. And, it did so with substantial support from my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, clearing demonstrating what I have always 
known to be the case--that the fight to combat domestic violence and 
sexual assault is not a partisan issue, but a serious problem that 
affects our constituents in every one of our States and in every one of 
our home towns across this country.
  But even this bipartisan support to pass the act into law did not 
resolve the dispute as to whether the problem of violence against women 
merited a national response. As many of my colleagues will recall, 
throughout the summer of 1995, the Congress debated whether or not we 
should actually fund the Violence Against Women Act.
  Fortunately, by the fall of that year, the Congress finally reached a 
consensus that the Federal Government

[[Page 777]]

both can and should provide significant resources and leadership in a 
national effort to end the violence women suffer at the hands of men, 
many of who they live with or have children with. That consensus 
continues to this day.
  Let me provide just a few statistics and examples to show how 
successful the initiative to fight violence against women has been, but 
how far we still have to go:
  On the one hand, the number of women killed by someone with whom they 
are in an intimate relationship--such as a current or former spouse, a 
cohabiting partner, or a current or former boyfriend--had decreased 
markedly--by 60 percent--in 1996 as compared with where it was 20 years 
earlier.
  And, the total number of women victims of domestic violence is 
decreasing as well. In 1993, the year before the Violence Against Women 
Act became law, 1.1 million women reported being the victim of domestic 
violence or sexual assault. By 1996, the last year for which we have 
complete statistics, the number had fallen by 25 percent to about 
840,000. This is still far, far too many, of course--even one victim is 
too many--but it represents an encouraging trend nonetheless that I 
believe we can attribute in part to the successes of this national 
effort.
  However, the news is not all good. One-fourth--25 percent--of women 
responding to a nationwide survey in late 1995 and early 1996 said that 
they had been raped or physically assaulted by a current or former 
spouse, cohabiting partner, or date in their lifetimes. And 
demonstrating that violence against women is primarily domestic partner 
violence, 76 percent of women who have been raped or physically 
assaulted since age 18 were attacked by a current or former husband, 
cohabiting partner, or date. These are troubling statistics. But the 
successes of the Violence Against Women Act are combating these trends 
in a variety of ways, such as:
  Putting thousands of trained police officers on the streets to arrest 
abusers before they can victimize again; supporting police officers as 
they work to help victims; adding trained prosecutors who put these 
abusers where they belong--in jail--or enforce protective orders to 
keep them away from those they have abused; tens of thousands of women 
and their children have access to shelters that provide a safe haven; 
victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have access to a wide 
array of support services from counseling to legal assistance; and a 
national domestic violence hotline handles hundreds of thousands of 
calls for help.
  Our consensus in the Congress reflects a fundamental agreement across 
our Nation: The time when a woman had to suffer--in silence and alone--
because the criminal who is victimizing her happens to be her husband 
or boyfriend is on its way to becoming ancient history.
  Today, we must build on this consensus and deliver on its promise--
because for all the strides we have made, there remain far too many 
women and their children who are still vulnerable. The statistics I 
reported just now reflect that reality. Just because we have had some 
success does not mean we can become complacent and abandon the fight 
against domestic violence now. And so, the legislation I am introducing 
today--the Violence Against Women Act II--has one simple goal: make 
more women and their children more safe.
  This legislation builds on the tremendous successes of the original 
Violence Against Women Act in three key ways--it continues what is 
working; it seeks to improve what could work better; and it expands the 
national fight into new areas where the need is clear.
  There are many other ideas and proposals in addition to those 
contained in this bill that deserve serious consideration before the 
full Senate debates this legislation. And, I am sure there are ways to 
refine and improve this bill. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make this bill the best it can 
be. There are many Senators who are deeply committed to combating 
violence against women, and many of them have joined me today, for 
which I am grateful. I encourage all of my colleagues to review this 
legislation, offer their insights and lend their names as co-sponsors 
and leaders in the fight against domestic violence. I believe they will 
find that it offers comprehensive, sensible, workable, and cost-
effective responses to combating violence against women.
  Before I describe some highlights of this legislation, let me first 
emphasize what I believe to be the key, core element of the violence 
against women II. That central factor is a simple one--the money. We 
need to ensure that there continues to be dollars for cops, courts, 
prosecutors, judges, shelters, and all the elements which are working. 
Keeping the money flowing to where it works requires one simple yet 
crucial step--extending the violent crime reduction trust fund to 2002. 
The trust fund is due to expire in 2000. This is perhaps the most 
significant provision in the act I introduce today, and without it we 
will fail in the future to replicate our past successes in combating 
violence against women.
  Beyond this fundamental step--and I cannot overemphasize the 
importance of the trust fund--there are four key policy areas addressed 
by the Violence Against Women Act II: strengthening law enforcement's 
tools; improving services for the victims of violence; reducing 
violence against children; and enhancing and supporting training and 
education efforts to enlist many more professionals in our shared 
fight.
  On the law enforcement front, the bill introduced today starts with 
needed improvements to promote inter-state and inter-jurisdictional 
enforcement of ``stay-away,'' or protection, orders. This is also known 
as giving ``full faith and credit'' to valid protection orders from any 
jurisdiction where they were issued. It often happens that the cops in 
one State may not know that there is a valid protection order issued by 
another jurisdiction. It is not their fault--it is often a matter of 
training to recognize valid orders or the means of communicating and 
sharing information across state lines. This is a mobile society, and 
victims of domestic violence often find they must flee the place they 
live and where they previously obtained a protection order so that they 
can keep themselves and their children safe. For these situations, we 
propose today a few simple fixes: Permitting state and local cops to 
use their ``pro-arrest'' grants for this kind of information sharing; 
encouraging states to enter into the cooperative agreements necessary 
to help interstate enforcement; and calling on the Justice Department 
to help develop new protocols and disseminate the ``best practices'' of 
State and local cops.
  These are all simple and common sense solutions, but very necessary 
nevertheless. This bill will help these fixes become reality.
  Other initiatives in this bill are to: Enhance and expand the 
resources available for courts to handle domestic violence and sexual 
assault cases; target the ``date-rape'' drug with the maximum federal 
penalties; continue funding for police, prosecutors, law enforcement 
efforts in rural communities, and for anti-stalking initiatives; and 
extend the support of local police ``pro-arrest'' efforts.
  Of course, a comprehensive effort to reduce violence against women 
and lessen the harm it causes must do more than just arrest, convict 
and imprison abusers--we must also help the victims of violence. This 
legislation proposes to assist these crime victims in three fundamental 
ways: Providing a means for immediate protections from their abusers, 
such as through access to shelters; easier access to the courts and to 
the legal assistance necessary to keep their abusers away from them; 
and removing the ``catch-22s'' that sometimes literally compel women to 
stay with their abusers--such as discriminatory insurance policies that 
could force a mother to choose between turning in the man who is 
beating her or keeping health insurance for her children. Another 
``catch-22'' affects immigrant women who are sometimes faced with a 
similar insidious ``choice.'' In 1994, we worked out provisions so 
battered immigrant women--whose ability to stay in the country was 
dependent on their husbands--would not have to choose

[[Page 778]]

between staying in this country and continuing to be beaten, or leaving 
their abusers, but in doing so have to also leave our country (perhaps 
even without their children). This bill fixes aspects of this problem 
that leave an abused woman with such a horrible, unfair and immoral 
choice.
  Those are this bill's three general policy goals. Let me outline more 
specifically just how our legislation proposes to boost the protections 
for the victims of violence.
  First and foremost, we must build on our successful effort to provide 
more shelter space for battered women and their children. There have 
been significant efforts already to fund shelters for women who are 
victims of domestic violence and their children. However, the unmet 
need for shelter remains significant. For example, data from six 
states, which together have about 16 percent of the nation's population 
had to turn away more than 45,000 battered women who were seeking 
shelter because they simply did not have the space. Extrapolating these 
figures to the entire nation suggests that about 300,000 battered women 
and their children are turned away from shelters every year.
  Current appropriations for shelter space stands at about $89 million. 
This legislation boosts this amount to $500 million over the the next 
three years. The additional money will help close the ``shelter-gap'' 
and bring us closer to the day when all battered women will have a 
safe, secure haven when they need it most.
  We must also provide women with the Assistance necessary so that they 
can get access to help from our justice system. This bill does so in 
some clear and common sense ways, such as: Re-authorizing the expiring 
program to provide about $1 million per year for victim and witness 
counselors in court; continuing and expanding the highly successful 
national domestic violence hotline at a cost of about $4 million a 
year; and developing a coordinated approach to connecting victims of 
domestic abuse with trained, volunteer attorneys who can provide 
critical legal assistant.
  To them at this very vulnerable time in their lives. I urge my 
colleagues to support--and even build upon--our efforts to put an end 
these real problems.
  A third area where this legislation seeks action is on reducing 
violence against children. As my colleagues know, households where a 
woman is beaten are much more likely to also be home to child abuse and 
neglect. Moreover, we know that children who witness violence are much 
more likely to repeat the cycle when they are adults.
  Here, our legislation proposes to continue two longstanding programs 
by providing: Resources to serve runaway and homeless youth who are 
victims of sexual abuse; and resources for court-appointed special 
advocates and special child abuse training for court personnel through 
the victims of child abuse act (originally cosponsored by Senator 
Thurmond and myself in 1990.)
  The remaining area targeted by the Violence Against Women Act--two 
includes several efforts to help train and educate those already on the 
front-lines of the battle against violence against women.
  Over the past few years, I have worked with several corporations who 
have begun their own workplace initiatives--everything from 24-hour 
assistance hotlines for their employees, training to help managers 
better recognize domestic violence, and even comprehensive employee 
assistant efforts.
  Helping other companies start or improve--on their own initiative--
such anti-violence efforts is why this legislation includes a national 
workplace clearinghouse on violence against women. The clearinghouse 
will provide technical assistance and help circulate best practices to 
companies interested in combating violence against women.
  Another problem in the field involves the complex nature of criminal 
investigations into sexual assault cases. To assist the cops in the 
field who conduct these investigations, this legislation calls on the 
Attorney General to evaluate and recommend standards of training and 
practice of forensic examinations following sexual assaults.
  Finally, this legislation continues the authorization for rape 
prevention and education programs. These programs provide public 
awareness and education efforts to teach young women how to protect 
themselves from rape and attack.
  I have just offered the most general outline of the contents of the 
Violence Against Women Act II. I introduced this legislation in the 
last session of Congress. My colleagues and I worked diligently and 
productively on it last year and made substantial progress. This year, 
I am determined that we will complete the work we started last year and 
pass the Violence Against Women Act II.
  I urge my colleagues to review this legislation carefully. This is 
not just a bipartisan effort--it is a non-partisan effort in which I 
hope every one of my colleagues will join me. I am confident they will 
find this bill a comprehensive and practical response that will help us 
meet a goal I believe is shared by every member of this Senate--making 
more women and more children more safe now and in the future.
  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. 51

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Violence 
     Against Women Act II''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

TITLE I--STRENGTHENING LAW ENFORCEMENT TO REDUCE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Sec. 101. Full faith and credit enforcement of protection orders.
Sec. 102. Role of courts.
Sec. 103. Reauthorization of STOP grants.
Sec. 104. Control of date-rape drug.
Sec. 105. Reauthorization of grants to encourage arrest policies.
Sec. 106. Violence against women in the military system.
Sec. 107. Hate crimes prevention.
Sec. 108. Reauthorization of rural domestic violence and child abuse 
              enforcement grants.
Sec. 109. National stalker and domestic violence reduction.
Sec. 110. Amendments to domestic violence and stalking offenses.

        TITLE II--STRENGTHENING SERVICES TO VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE

Sec. 201. Civil legal assistance.
Sec. 202. Shelters for battered women and children.
Sec. 203. Victims of abuse insurance protection.
Sec. 204. National domestic violence hotline.
Sec. 205. Federal victims' counselors.
Sec. 206. Battered women's employment protection.
Sec. 207. Ensuring unemployment compensation.
Sec. 208. Battered immigrant women.
Sec. 209. Older women's protection from violence.

        TITLE III--LIMITING THE EFFECTS OF VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN

Sec. 301. Safe havens for children.
Sec. 302. Study of child custody laws in domestic violence cases.
Sec. 303. Reauthorization of runaway and homeless youth grants.
Sec. 304. Reauthorization of victims of child abuse programs.

   TITLE IV--STRENGTHENING EDUCATION AND TRAINING TO COMBAT VIOLENCE 
                             AGAINST WOMEN

Sec. 401. Education and training of health professionals.
Sec. 402. Education and training in appropriate responses to violence 
              against women.
Sec. 403. Rape prevention and education.
Sec. 404. Violence against women prevention education among youth.
Sec. 405. Education and training to end violence against and abuse of 
              women with disabilities.
Sec. 406. Community initiatives.
Sec. 407. National commission on standards of practice and training for 
              sexual assault examinations.
Sec. 408. National workplace clearinghouse on violence against women.
Sec. 409. Strengthening research to combat violence against women.

        TITLE V--EXTENSION OF VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND

Sec. 501. Extension.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``domestic violence'' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 2003 of

[[Page 779]]

     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2); and
       (2) the term ``sexual assault'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.3796gg-2).
TITLE I--STRENGTHENING LAW ENFORCEMENT TO REDUCE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

     SEC. 101. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT ENFORCEMENT OF PROTECTION 
                   ORDERS.

       (a) In General.--Part U of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh et 
     seq.) is amended--
       (1) in the part heading, by adding ``AND ENFORCEMENT OF 
     PROTECTION ORDERS'' at the end;
       (2) in section 2101(b), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) To provide technical assistance and computer and 
     other equipment to police departments, prosecutors, courts, 
     and tribal jurisdictions to facilitate the widespread 
     enforcement of protection orders, including interstate 
     enforcement, enforcement between States and tribal 
     jurisdictions, and enforcement between tribal 
     jurisdictions.''; and
       (3) in section 2102--
       (A) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``, including the enforcement of protection 
     orders from other States and jurisdictions (including tribal 
     jurisdictions);''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) have established cooperative agreements with 
     neighboring jurisdictions to facilitate the enforcement of 
     protection orders from other States and jurisdictions 
     (including tribal jurisdictions); and
       ``(4) will give priority to using the grant to develop and 
     install data collection and communication systems, including 
     computerized systems, linking police, prosecutors, courts, 
     and tribal jurisdictions for the purpose of identifying and 
     tracking protection orders and violations of protection 
     orders.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Dissemination of Information.--The Attorney General 
     shall annually compile and broadly disseminate (including 
     through electronic publication) information about successful 
     data collection and communication systems that meet the 
     purposes described in subsection (b)(3). Such dissemination 
     shall target States, State and local courts, Indian tribal 
     governments, and units of local government.''.
       (b) Custody and Protection Orders.--Section 2265 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Registration.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State or Indian tribe shall not notify 
     the party against whom a protection order has been made that 
     the protection order has been registered or filed in the 
     State or tribal jurisdiction unless requested to do so by the 
     party protected under that order.
       ``(2) No prior registration or filing required.--Nothing in 
     this subsection may be construed to require the prior filing 
     or registration of a protection order in an enforcing State 
     in order to secure enforcement pursuant to subsection (a).
       ``(e) Notice.--A protection order that is otherwise 
     consistent with this section shall be accorded full faith and 
     credit and enforced notwithstanding the failure to provide 
     notice to the party against whom the order is made of its 
     registration or filing in the enforcing State or Indian 
     tribe.''.
       (c) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents for title I 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended in the item relating to part 
     U, by adding ``and Enforcement of Protection Orders'' at the 
     end.

     SEC. 102. ROLE OF COURTS.

       (a) Courts as Eligible STOP Grantees.--Part T of title I of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796gg et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 2001--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by inserting ``State and local courts,'' after 
     ``States,''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``tribal courts,'' after ``Indian tribal 
     governments,''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in each of paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting ``, 
     judges and other court personnel,'' after ``law enforcement 
     officers''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, court,'' after 
     ``police''; and
       (2) in section 2002--
       (A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``State and local 
     courts,'' after ``States,'' the second place it appears;
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) of the amount granted--
       ``(A) not less than 25 percent shall be allocated to police 
     and prosecutors;
       ``(B) not less than 30 percent shall be allocated to victim 
     services; and
       ``(C) not less than 10 percent shall be allocated for State 
     and local courts; and''; and
       (C) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ``court,'' after 
     ``law enforcement,''.
       (b) Reauthorization of State Justice Institute Grants.--
     Chapter 1 of subtitle D of the Violence Against Women Act of 
     1994 (42 U.S.C. 13991 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 40412--
       (A) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``stereotyping of 
     individuals with disabilities (as defined in section 3 of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102)) 
     who are victims of rape, sexual assault, abuse, or 
     violence,'' before ``racial stereotyping'';
       (B) in paragraph (13), by inserting ``or among individuals 
     with disabilities (as defined in section 3 of the Americans 
     with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102)),'' after 
     ``socioeconomic groups,'';
       (C) in paragraph (18), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (D) in paragraph (19), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) domestic violence and child abuse in custody 
     determinations and stereotypes regarding the fitness of 
     individuals with disabilities (as defined in section 3 of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102)) to 
     retain custody of children in domestic violence cases;
       ``(21) promising practices in the vertical management of 
     domestic violence offender cases; and
       ``(22) issues relating to violence against and abuse of 
     individuals with disabilities (as defined in section 3 of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102)), 
     including the nature of physical, mental, and communications 
     disabilities, the special vulnerability to violence of 
     individuals with disabilities, and the types of violence and 
     abuse experienced by individuals with disabilities.''; and
       (2) in section 40414, by striking subsection (a) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under 
     section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out this 
     chapter $600,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 
     2002.''.
       (c) Federal Judicial Personnel.--In carrying out section 
     620(b)(3) of title 28, United States Code, the Federal 
     Judicial Center, shall include in its educational and 
     training programs, including the training programs for newly 
     appointed judges, information on the topics listed in section 
     40412 of the Equal Justice for Women in the Courts Act (42 
     U.S.C. 13992) that pertain to issues within the jurisdiction 
     of the Federal courts, and shall prepare materials necessary 
     to implement this section and the amendments made by this 
     section.
       (d) Grants To Encourage Arrest Policies.--
       (1) Eligible grantees; use of grants for education.--
     Section 2101 of part U of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``State and local 
     courts, tribal courts,'' after ``Indian tribal 
     governments,'';
       (B) in each of subsections (b) and (c), by inserting 
     ``State and local courts,'' after ``Indian tribal 
     governments''; and
       (C) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in paragraph (2), by striking ``policies and'' and 
     inserting ``policies, educational programs, and''; and
       (ii) in each of paragraphs (3) and (4), by inserting 
     ``parole and probation officers,'' after ``prosecutors,'' 
     each place that term appears.
       (2) Allotment for indian tribes.--Section 2101 of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796hh) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Allotment for Indian Tribes.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not less than 5 percent of the total 
     amount made available for grants under this section for each 
     fiscal year shall be available for grants to Indian tribal 
     governments.
       ``(2) Reallotment of funds.--If, beginning 12 months after 
     the first day of any fiscal year for which amounts are made 
     available under this subsection, any amount made available 
     under this subsection remains unobligated, the unobligated 
     amount may be allocated without regard to paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection.''.

     SEC. 103. REAUTHORIZATION OF STOP GRANTS.

       (a) Reauthorization.--Section 1001(a)(18) of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3793(a)(18)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(18) There is authorized to be appropriated from the 
     Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under section 
     310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
     of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out part T $184,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2000, $185,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and 
     $186,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.
       (b) State Coalition Grants.--Part T of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796gg et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 2001--
       (A) in subsection (b)(5), by inserting ``, and the forms of 
     violence and abuse suffered by women who are individuals with 
     disabilities (as defined in section 3 of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102))''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) State Coalition Grants.--

[[Page 780]]

       ``(1) Purpose.--The Attorney General shall make grants to 
     each State domestic violence coalition and sexual assault 
     coalition for the purposes of coordinating State victim 
     services activities, and collaborating and coordinating with 
     Federal, State, and local entities engaged in violence 
     against women activities.
       ``(2) Grants to state coalitions.--The Attorney General 
     shall make grants to--
       ``(A) each State domestic violence coalition, as determined 
     by the Secretary of Health and Human Services through the 
     Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10410 
     et seq.); and
       ``(B) each State sexual assault coalition, as determined by 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Public 
     Health Service Act.
       ``(3) Eligibility for other grants.--Receipt of an award 
     under this subsection by each State domestic violence and 
     sexual assault coalition shall not preclude the coalition 
     from receiving additional grants under this part to carry out 
     the purposes described in subsection (b).'';
       (2) in section 2002(b)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) 2 percent shall be available for grants for State 
     coalitions under section 2001(c), with the coalition for each 
     State, the coalition for the District of Columbia, the 
     coalition for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the 
     coalition for the combined Territories of the United States 
     each receiving an amount equal to \1/53\ of the total amount 
     made available under this paragraph for each fiscal year;''; 
     and
       (3) in section 2003--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``by a person with whom 
     the victim has engaged in a social relationship of a romantic 
     or intimate nature'' after ``child in common,'';
       (B) in paragraph (8)--
       (i) by striking ``assisting domestic violence or sexual 
     assault victims through the legal process'' and inserting 
     ``providing assistance for victims seeking legal, social, or 
     health care services''; and
       (ii) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, except that the term does not include any 
     program or activity that is targeted primarily for 
     offenders''; and
       (C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``physical''.
       (d) Reallotment of Funds.--Section 2002(e) of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-
     1(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Reallotment of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--If, beginning 1 year after the last day 
     of any fiscal year for which amounts are made available under 
     section 1001(a)(18), any amount made available remains 
     unobligated, the unobligated amount may be allocated by a 
     State to fulfill the purposes described in section 2001(b), 
     without regard to subsection (c)(3) of this section.
       ``(B) Guidelines.--The Attorney General shall promulgate 
     guidelines to implement this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 104. CONTROL OF DATE-RAPE DRUG.

       Notwithstanding section 201 or subsection (a) or (b) of 
     section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811, 
     812(a), 812(b)) respecting the scheduling of controlled 
     substances, the Attorney General shall by order transfer 
     flunitrazepam from schedule IV of such Act to schedule I of 
     such Act.

     SEC. 105. REAUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS TO ENCOURAGE ARREST 
                   POLICIES.

       Section 1001(a)(19) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(19)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(19) There is authorized to be appropriated from the 
     Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under section 
     310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
     of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out part U $64,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2000, $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and 
     $66,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.

     SEC. 106. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN THE MILITARY SYSTEM.

       (a) Criminal Offenses Committed Outside the United States 
     by Persons Accompanying the Armed Forces.--
       (1) In general.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 211 the following:

``CHAPTER 212--DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES COMMITTED 
                       OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

``Sec.
``3261. Definitions.
``3262. Domestic violence and sexual assault offenses committed by 
              persons employed by or accompanying, the Armed Forces 
              outside the United States.
``3263. Delivery to authorities of foreign countries.
``3264. Regulations.

     ``Sec. 3261. Definitions

       ``In this chapter--
       ``(1) the term `armed forces' has the same meaning as in 
     section 101(a)(4) of title 10;
       ``(2) a person is `employed by the Armed Forces outside of 
     the United States' if the person--
       ``(A) is an employee of the Department of Defense;
       ``(B) is present or residing outside of the United States 
     in connection with such employment; and
       ``(C) is a national of the United States, as defined in 
     101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(22)); and
       ``(3) a person is `accompanying the Armed Forces outside of 
     the United States' if the person--
       ``(A) is a dependent of a member of the armed forces, as 
     determined under regulations prescribed pursuant to section 
     3264;
       ``(B) is a dependent of an employee of the Department of 
     Defense, as determined under regulations prescribed pursuant 
     to section 3264;
       ``(C) is residing with the member or employee outside of 
     the United States; and
       ``(D) is a national of the United States, as defined in 
     101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(22)).

     ``Sec. 3262. Domestic violence and sexual assault offenses 
       committed by persons employed by or accompanying the Armed 
       Forces outside the United States

       ``(a) In General.--Whoever, while employed by or 
     accompanying the Armed Forces outside of the United States, 
     engages in conduct that would constitute a domestic violence 
     or sexual assault offense, if the conduct had been engaged in 
     within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of 
     the United States, shall be subject to prosecution in a 
     district court of the United States.
       ``(b) Concurrent Jurisdiction.--Nothing contained in this 
     chapter deprives courts-martial, military commissions, 
     provost courts, or other military tribunals of concurrent 
     jurisdiction with respect to offenders or offenses that by 
     statute or by the law of war may be tried by courts-martial, 
     military commissions, provost courts, or other military 
     tribunals.
       ``(c) Priority of Exercise of Jurisdiction.--
       ``(1) Action by military tribunal.--No prosecution may be 
     commenced in the United States district court under this 
     section until an official of the Department of Defense 
     designated pursuant to regulations jointly prescribed by the 
     Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary 
     of Transportation (with respect to the Coast Guard when it is 
     not operating as a service in the Navy) waives the exercise 
     of jurisdiction referred to in subsection (b) in accordance 
     with procedures set forth in the regulations.
       ``(2) Action by foreign government.--No prosecution may be 
     commenced in a district court under this section if a foreign 
     government, in accordance with jurisdiction recognized by the 
     United States, has prosecuted or is prosecuting such person 
     for the conduct constituting such offense, except upon the 
     approval of the Attorney General of the United States or the 
     Deputy Attorney General of the United States (or a person 
     acting in either such capacity), which function of approval 
     shall not be delegated.
       ``(d) Arrests.--
       ``(1) Law enforcement personnel.--The Secretary of Defense 
     may designate and authorize any person serving in a law 
     enforcement position in the Department of Defense to arrest 
     outside of the United States any person described in 
     subsection (a) if there is probable cause to believe that 
     such person engaged in conduct which constitutes a criminal 
     offense under subsection (a).
       ``(2) Release to civilian law enforcement.--A person 
     arrested under paragraph (1) shall be released to the custody 
     of civilian law enforcement authorities of the United States 
     for removal to the United States for judicial proceedings in 
     the United States district court of the named jurisdiction of 
     origin of the person arrested in relation to conduct referred 
     to in such paragraph if--
       ``(A) military jurisdiction has been waived under 
     subsection (c)(1) in the case of that person; and
       ``(B) that person has not been, and is not to be, delivered 
     to authorities of a foreign country under section 3263; or

     ``Sec. 3263. Delivery to authorities of foreign countries

       ``(a) In General.--Any person designated and authorized 
     under section 3262(d) may deliver a person described in 
     section 3262(a) to the appropriate authorities of a foreign 
     country in which the person is alleged to have engaged in 
     conduct described in subsection (a) if--
       ``(1) the appropriate authorities of that country request 
     the delivery of the person to such country for trial for such 
     conduct as an offense under the laws of that country; and
       ``(2) the delivery of such person to that country is 
     authorized by a treaty or other international agreement to 
     which the United States is a party.
       ``(b) Determination by the Secretary.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall determine which officials of a foreign country 
     constitute appropriate authorities for purposes of this 
     section.

     ``Sec. 3264. Regulations

       ``The Secretary of Defense shall issue regulations 
     governing the apprehension, detention, and removal of persons 
     under this chapter. Such regulations shall be uniform 
     throughout the Department of Defense.''.

[[Page 781]]

       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of chapters at the 
     beginning of part II of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 211 
     the following:

``212. Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Offenses Committed Outside 
    the United States.......................................3261''.....

       (b) Records of Military Justice Actions.--
       (1) In general.--Subchapter XI of chapter 47 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 940a. Art. 140a Military justice information: 
       transmission to Director of the Federal Bureau of 
       Investigation

       ``Whenever a member of the armed forces is discharged or 
     dismissed from the armed forces or is released from active 
     duty, the Secretary of the military department concerned 
     shall transmit to the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation a copy of records of any penal action taken 
     against the member during that period under this chapter, 
     including any nonjudicial punishment imposed under section 
     815 of this title (article 15).''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of subchapter IX of chapter 47 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``940a. 140a. Military justice information: transmission to the 
              Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.''.
       (c) Transitional Compensation.--Section 1059(g)(2) of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended by striking ``the 
     Secretary may not resume such payments'' and inserting ``the 
     Secretary may, under circumstances determined extraordinary 
     by the Secretary, resume such payments''.

     SEC. 107. HATE CRIMES PREVENTION.

       (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``hate crime'' 
     has the same meaning as in section 280003(a) of the Violent 
     Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 
     note).
       (b) Prohibition of Certain Acts of Violence.--Section 245 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c)(1) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, 
     willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the 
     use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to 
     cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or 
     perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any 
     person--
       ``(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined 
     in accordance with this title, or both; and
       ``(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for 
     life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both if--
       ``(i) death results from the acts committed in violation of 
     this paragraph; or
       ``(ii) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph 
     include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual 
     abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an 
     attempt to kill.
       ``(2)(A) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, 
     in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully 
     causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of 
     fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause 
     bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or 
     perceived religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability 
     of any person--
       ``(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined 
     in accordance with this title, or both; and
       ``(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for 
     life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
       ``(I) death results from the acts committed in violation of 
     this paragraph; or
       ``(II) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph 
     include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual 
     abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an 
     attempt to kill.
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances 
     described in this subparagraph are that--
       ``(i) in connection with the offense, the defendant or the 
     victim travels in interstate or foreign commerce, uses a 
     facility or instrumentality of interstate or foreign 
     commerce, or engages in any activity affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce; or
       ``(ii) the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign 
     commerce.''.
       (c) Duties of Federal Sentencing Commission.--
       (1) Amendment of federal sentencing guidelines.--Pursuant 
     to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States 
     Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall study the 
     issue of adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes 
     and shall, if appropriate amend the Federal sentencing 
     guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements (in addition to 
     the sentencing enhancement provided for the use of a minor 
     during the commission of an offense) for adult defendants who 
     recruit juveniles to assist in the commission of hate crimes.
       (2) Consistency with other guidelines.--In carrying out 
     this subsection, the United States Sentencing Commission 
     shall--
       (A) ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other 
     Federal sentencing guidelines; and
       (B) avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the 
     same offense.
       (d) Grant Program.--
       (1) Authority to make grants.--The Administrator of the 
     Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the 
     Department of Justice shall make grants, in accordance with 
     such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to 
     State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes 
     committed by juveniles.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this subsection.
       (e) Authorization for Additional Personnel To Assist State 
     and Local Law Enforcement.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Department of the Treasury and the 
     Department of Justice, including the Community Relations 
     Service, for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 such sums as 
     are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent 
     and respond to alleged violations of section 245 of title 18, 
     United States Code (as amended by this section).
       (f) Severability.--If any provision of this section, an 
     amendment made by this section, or the application of such 
     provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held 
     to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this section, the 
     amendments made by this section, and the application of the 
     provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be 
     affected thereby.

     SEC. 108. REAUTHORIZATION OF RURAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND 
                   CHILD ABUSE ENFORCEMENT GRANTS.

       (a) Reauthorization.--Section 40295(c)(1) of the Violence 
     Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13971(c)(1)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under 
     section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out this 
     section--
       ``(A) $34,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(B) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(C) $36,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.
       (b) Indian Tribes.--Section 40295(c) of the Violence 
     Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13971(c)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Allotment for indian tribes.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not less than 5 percent of the total 
     amount made available to carry out this section for each 
     fiscal year shall be available for grants to Indian tribal 
     governments.
       ``(B) Reallotment of funds.--If, beginning 12 months after 
     the last day of any fiscal year for which amounts are made 
     available to carry out this paragraph, any amount made 
     available under this paragraph remains unobligated, the 
     unobligated amount may be allocated without regard to 
     subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 109. NATIONAL STALKER AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REDUCTION.

       (a) Reauthorization.--Section 40603 of the Violence Against 
     Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14032) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 40603. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There is authorized to be appropriated from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under section 310001 
     of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 
     (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out this subtitle--
       ``(1) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(2) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(3) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 40602(a) of the Violence 
     Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14031 note) is amended 
     by inserting ``and implement'' after ``improve''.

     SEC. 110. AMENDMENTS TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND STALKING 
                   OFFENSES.

       (a) Interstate Domestic Violence.--Section 2261(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Offenses.--
       ``(1) Travel or conduct of offender.--A person who travels 
     in interstate or foreign commerce or to or from Indian 
     country with the intent to injure, harass, or intimidate a 
     spouse or intimate partner, and who, in the course of or as a 
     result of such travel, commits or attempts to commit a crime 
     of violence against that spouse or intimate partner, shall be 
     punished as provided in subsection (b).
       ``(2) Causing travel of victim.--A person who causes a 
     spouse or intimate partner to travel in interstate or foreign 
     commerce or to or from Indian country by force, coercion, 
     duress, or fraud, and who, in the course of or as a result of 
     such conduct or travel, commits or attempts to commit a crime 
     of violence against that spouse or intimate partner, shall be 
     punished as provided in subsection (b).''.
       (b) Interstate Stalking.--Section 2261A of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2261A. Interstate stalking

       ``Whoever--

[[Page 782]]

       ``(1) with the intent to injure, harass, or intimidate 
     another person, engages in the special maritime and 
     territorial jurisdiction of the United States in conduct that 
     places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or 
     serious bodily injury to, that person or a member of the 
     immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person; 
     or
       ``(2) with the intent to injure, harass, or intimidate 
     another person, travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or 
     enters or leaves Indian country, and, in the course of or as 
     a result of such travel, engages in conduct that places that 
     person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily 
     injury to, that person or a member of that person's immediate 
     family (as defined in section 115),
     shall be punished as provided in section 2261.''.
       (c) Interstate Violation of Protection Order.--Section 
     2262(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(a) Offenses.--
       ``(1) Travel or conduct of offender.--A person who travels 
     in interstate or foreign commerce, or enters of leaves Indian 
     country, with the intent to engage in conduct that violates 
     the portion of a protection order that prohibits or provides 
     protection against violence, threats, or harassment against, 
     contact or communication with, or physical proximity to, 
     another person, or that would violate such a portion of a 
     protection order in the jurisdiction in which the order was 
     issued, and subsequently engages in such conduct, shall be 
     punished as provided in subsection (b).
       ``(2) Causing travel of victim.--A person who causes 
     another person to travel in interstate or foreign commerce or 
     to or from Indian country by force, coercion, duress, or 
     fraud, and in the course of or as a result of such conduct or 
     travel engages in conduct that violates the portion of a 
     protection order that prohibits or provides protection 
     against violence, threats, or harassment against, contact or 
     communication with, or physical proximity to, another person, 
     or that would violate such a portion of a protection order in 
     the jurisdiction in which the order was issued, shall be 
     punished as provided in subsection (b).''.
       (d) Full Faith and Credit.--Section 2265 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Tribal Court Jurisdiction.--For purposes of this 
     section, a tribal court shall be deemed to have jurisdiction 
     over any activity occurring in Indian country.''.
       (e) Definitions.--Section 2266 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2266. Definitions

       ``In this chapter:
       ``(1) Bodily injury.--The term `bodily injury' means any 
     act, except one done in self-defense, that results in 
     physical injury or sexual abuse.
       ``(2) Enters or leaves indian country.--The term `enters or 
     leaves Indian country' includes leaving the jurisdiction of 1 
     tribal government and entering the jurisdiction of another 
     tribal government.
       ``(3) Indian country.--The term `Indian country' has the 
     meaning stated in section 1151.
       ``(4) Protection order.--The term `protection order' 
     includes any injunction or other order issued for the purpose 
     of preventing violent or threatening acts or harassment 
     against, or contact or communication with or physical 
     proximity to, another person, including temporary and final 
     orders issued by civil and criminal courts (other than 
     support or child custody orders issued pursuant to State 
     divorce and child custody laws) whether obtained by filing an 
     independent action or as a pendente lite order in another 
     proceeding so long as any civil order was issued in response 
     to a complaint, petition or motion filed by or on behalf of a 
     person seeking protection. Custody and visitation provisions 
     in protection orders are subject to this chapter.
       ``(5) Serious bodily injury.--The term `serious bodily 
     injury' has the meaning stated in section 2119(2).
       ``(6) Spouse or intimate partner.--The term `spouse or 
     intimate partner' includes--
       ``(A) a spouse, a former spouse, a person who shares a 
     child in common with the abuser, a person who cohabits or has 
     cohabited with the abuser as a spouse, and a person with whom 
     the abuser has engaged in a social relationship of a romantic 
     or intimate nature; and
       ``(B) any other person similarly situated to a spouse who 
     is protected by the domestic or family violence laws of the 
     State or tribal jurisdiction in which the injury occurred or 
     where the victim resides.
       ``(7) State.--The term `State' includes a State of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, a commonwealth, 
     territory, or possession of the United States.
       ``(8) Travel in interstate or foreign commerce.--The term 
     `travel in interstate or foreign commerce' does not include 
     travel from 1 State to another by an individual who is a 
     member of an Indian tribe and who remains at all times in the 
     territory of the Indian tribe of which the individual is a 
     member.''.
        TITLE II--STRENGTHENING SERVICES TO VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE

     SEC. 201. CIVIL LEGAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--The purpose of this section is to enable 
     the Attorney General to make grants to further the health, 
     safety, and economic well-being of victims of domestic 
     violence, stalking, and sexual assault by providing civil 
     legal assistance to such victims.
       (b) Civil Legal Assistance Grants.--The Attorney General 
     may make grants under this subsection to private nonprofit 
     entities, publicly funded organizations not acting in a 
     governmental capacity, and Indian tribal governments and 
     affiliated organizations, which shall be used--
       (1) to implement, expand, and establish cooperative efforts 
     and projects between domestic violence and sexual assault 
     victim advocacy organizations and civil legal assistance 
     providers to strengthen a broad range of civil legal 
     assistance for victims of domestic violence, stalking, and 
     sexual assault;
       (2) to implement, expand, and establish efforts and 
     projects to strengthen a broad range of civil legal 
     assistance for victims of domestic violence, stalking, and 
     sexual assault by organizations with a demonstrated history 
     of providing direct legal or advocacy services on behalf of 
     these victims; and
       (3) to provide training, technical assistance, and data 
     collection to improve the capacity of grantees and other 
     entities to offer civil legal assistance to victims of 
     domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault.
       (c) Grant to Create Database of Programs That Provide Civil 
     Legal Assistance to Victims of Domestic Violence, Stalking, 
     and Sexual Assault.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General may make a grant to 
     establish, operate, and maintain a national computer database 
     of programs that provide civil legal assistance to victims of 
     domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault.
       (2) Database requirements.--A database established with a 
     grant under this subsection shall be--
       (A) designed to facilitate the referral of persons to 
     programs that provide civil legal assistance to victims of 
     domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault; and
       (B) operated in coordination with the national domestic 
     violence hotline established under section 316 of the Family 
     Violence Prevention and Services Act.
       (d) Evaluation.--The Attorney General may evaluate the 
     grants funded under this section through contracts or other 
     arrangements with entities expert on domestic violence, 
     stalking, and sexual assault, and on evaluation research.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under 
     section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out this 
     section--
       (A) $34,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       (B) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       (C) $36,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
       (2) Allocation of funds.--Of the amount made available 
     under this subsection in each fiscal year, not less than 5 
     percent shall be used for grants for programs that assist 
     victims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault on 
     lands within the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe.
       (3) Nonsupplantation.--Amounts made available under this 
     section shall be used to supplement and not supplant other 
     Federal, State, and local funds expended to further the 
     purpose of this section.

     SEC. 202. SHELTERS FOR BATTERED WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

       (a) State Shelter Grants; Direct Emergency Assistance.--
     Section 303 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 10402) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (H); 
     and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following:
       ``(G) provide documentation, including memoranda of 
     understanding, of the specific involvement of the State 
     domestic violence coalition and other knowledgeable 
     individuals and interested organizations, in the development 
     of the application; and''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``No funds provided'' and inserting ``(1) 
     Except as provided in paragraph (2), no funds provided''; and
       (B) by inserting after the period the following:
       ``(2) Not more than 1 percent of the funds appropriated to 
     carry out this section and distributed under subsection (a) 
     or (b) may be used to provide emergency assistance, such as 
     transportation and housing assistance, directly to victims of 
     family violence, or to the dependents of such victims, who 
     are in the process of fleeing an abusive situation. Any 
     entity that provides such assistance shall annually prepare 
     and submit to the Secretary a report specifying, and 
     describing the distribution of, funds provided pursuant to 
     this paragraph. The report shall not contain information 
     identifying an individual recipient of such assistance.''.
       (b) State Minimum; Reallotment.--Section 304 of the Family 
     Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10403) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``for grants to States 
     for any fiscal year'' and all that follows and inserting the 
     following:

[[Page 783]]

     ``and available for grants to States under this subsection 
     for any fiscal year--
       ``(1) Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
     and the combined Freely Associated States shall each be 
     allotted not less than \1/8\ of 1 percent of the amounts 
     available for grants under section 303(a) for the fiscal year 
     for which the allotment is made; and
       ``(2) each State shall be allotted for payment in a grant 
     authorized under section 303(a) $500,000, with the remaining 
     funds to be allotted to each State in an amount that bears 
     the same ratio to such remaining funds as the population of 
     such State bears to the population of all States.'';
       (2) in subsection (c), in the first sentence, by inserting 
     ``and available'' before ``for grants'';
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) If, at the end of the sixth month of a fiscal year 
     for which sums are appropriated under section 310--
       ``(A) the entire portion of such sums that is made 
     available for grants under section 303(b) has not been 
     distributed to Indian tribes and organizations described in 
     section 303(b) in grants because of the failure of 1 or more 
     of the tribes or organizations to meet the requirements for 
     such a grant, the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) use the remainder of the portion to make grants under 
     section 303(b) to Indian tribes and organizations who meet 
     the requirements; and
       ``(ii) make the grants in proportion to the original grants 
     made to the tribes and organizations under section 303(b) for 
     such year.''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated in subparagraph (A)) 
     by inserting ``or distribution under section 303(b)'' after 
     ``303(a)''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) In subsection (a)(2), the term `State' does not 
     include any jurisdiction specified in subsection (a)(1).''.
       (c) Secretarial Responsibilities.--Section 305(a) of the 
     Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 
     10404(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``an employee'' and inserting ``1 or more 
     employees'';
       (2) by striking ``of this title.'' and inserting ``of this 
     title, including carrying out evaluation and monitoring under 
     this title.''; and
       (3) by striking ``individual'' and inserting 
     ``individuals''.
       (d) Resource Centers.--Section 308 of the Family Violence 
     Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10407) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) by striking the following:
       ``(2) Grants.--From the amounts'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Grants.--
       ``(A) Centers.--From the amounts'';
       (B) by inserting ``on providing information, training, and 
     technical assistance'' after ``focusing''; and
       (C) by inserting after the period the following:
       ``(B) Initiatives.--From such amounts, the Secretary may 
     award grants to private nonprofit organizations for 
     information, training, and technical assistance initiatives 
     in the subject areas identified in subsection (c), if--
       ``(i) such initiatives do not duplicate the activities of 
     the entities operating the special issue resource centers 
     provided for in subsection (c); and
       ``(ii) the total amounts awarded for all such initiatives 
     do not exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 7 percent of the 
     funds appropriated for making grants under this section.''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Providing technical assistance and training to local 
     entities carrying out domestic violence programs that provide 
     shelter or related assistance.
       ``(9) Improving access to services, information, and 
     training, concerning family violence, within Indian tribes 
     and Indian tribal agencies.
       ``(10) Responding to emerging issues in the field of family 
     violence that the Secretary may identify in consultation with 
     advocates for local entities carrying out domestic violence 
     programs that provide shelter or related assistance, State 
     domestic violence coalitions, and national domestic violence 
     organizations.''.
       (e) Reauthorization.--Section 310(a) of the Family Violence 
     Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10409(a)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title--
       ``(A) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(B) $175,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(C) $175,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
       ``(2) Source of funds.--Amounts made available under 
     paragraph (1) may be appropriated from the Violent Crime 
     Reduction Trust Fund established under section 310001 of the 
     Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 
     U.S.C. 14211).''.
       (f) Limitation on Funds.--Section 310 of the Family 
     Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10409), as 
     amended by subsection (e), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``under subsection 
     303(a)'' and inserting ``under section 303(a)'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``not more than the 
     lesser of $7,500,000 or'' before ``5'';
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking the following:
       ``(d) Grants for State Coalitions.--Of the amounts'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(d) Grants for State Coalitions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), of 
     the amounts''; and
       (B) by inserting after the period the following:
       ``(2) Appropriations exceeding $110,000,000.--If the total 
     amount appropriated under subsection (a) for a fiscal year 
     exceeds $110,000,000, the Secretary shall use, for making 
     grants under section 311, not less than--
       ``(A) $11,000,000; plus
       ``(B) 8 percent of the amount appropriated under such 
     subsection for such fiscal year in excess of $110,000,000.'';
       (4) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (5) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Evaluation, Monitoring, and Administration.--Of the 
     amounts appropriated under subsection (a) for each fiscal 
     year, not more than $1,200,000 shall be used by the Secretary 
     for evaluation, monitoring, and administrative costs under 
     this title.''.
       (g) Needs Assessment.--Title III of the Family Violence 
     Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10401 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 319. NEEDS ASSESSMENT.

       ``In carrying out this title, the Secretary shall provide 
     for the conduct of a nationwide needs assessment relating to 
     the programs carried out under this title.''.
       (h) Model Leadership Grants for Domestic Violence 
     Intervention in Underserved Communities.--
       (1) In general.--Title III of the Family Violence 
     Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10401 et seq.), as 
     amended by subsection (g), is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 320. MODEL LEADERSHIP GRANTS FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 
                   INTERVENTION IN UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES.

       ``(a) Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may award grants to 
     develop and implement model community intervention strategies 
     to address family violence in underserved populations (as 
     such term is defined in section 2003 of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2)).
       ``(2) Limitations.--In awarding grants under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary shall award grants to not more than 10 State 
     domestic violence coalitions and to not more than 10 local 
     entities that carry out domestic violence programs providing 
     shelter or related assistance.
       ``(3) Purposes.--Grants awarded under paragraph (1) shall 
     be used for--
       ``(A) assessing the needs of underserved populations in the 
     State involved;
       ``(B) building collaborative relationships between the 
     grant recipients and community-based organizations serving 
     underserved populations; and
       ``(C) developing and implementing model community 
     intervention strategies to decrease the incidence of family 
     violence in underserved populations.
       ``(4) Periods.--The Secretary shall award grants under 
     paragraph (1) for periods of not more than 3 years.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--
       ``(1) Initial eligibility.--To be eligible for an initial 
     year of funding through a grant awarded under subsection 
     (a)(1), an applicant shall--
       ``(A) submit to the Secretary an application containing an 
     acceptable plan for assessing the needs of underserved 
     populations for the model community intervention strategies 
     described in subsection (a)(3)(C), and identifying a specific 
     population for development of such an intervention strategy, 
     in the first year of the grant; and
       ``(B) demonstrate to the Secretary inclusion of 
     representatives from community-based organizations in 
     underserved communities in planning and designing the needs 
     assessment under subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Continued eligibility.--To be eligible for continued 
     funding for not more than 2 additional years through a grant 
     awarded under subsection (a)(1), a recipient of funding for 
     the initial year shall submit to the Secretary an application 
     containing--
       ``(A) a plan for implementing the intervention strategy, 
     and specifying the collaborative relationships with 
     community-based organizations serving the identified 
     underserved populations to be supported under the grant; and
       ``(B) a plan for disseminating the intervention strategy 
     throughout the State and, at the option of the recipient, to 
     other States.
       ``(c) Priority for Collaborative Funding.--
       ``(1) In general.--In awarding grants under subsection 
     (a)(1), the Secretary shall give

[[Page 784]]

     priority to State domestic violence coalitions, and local 
     entities that carry out domestic violence programs, that 
     submit applications in collaboration with community-based 
     organizations serving underserved populations.
       ``(2) Amounts.--The Secretary shall award grants under 
     subsection (a)(1) to coalitions and entities described in 
     paragraph (1) in amounts of not less than $100,000 per fiscal 
     year.''.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 310 of the 
     Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 
     10409), as amended by subsection (f), is further amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Redistribution of Funds Available Due to Certain 
     Limitations.--
       ``(1) Appropriations exceeding $110,000,000.--Except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), if the total amount appropriated 
     under subsection (a) for a fiscal year exceeds $110,000,000, 
     the Secretary shall use not less than 2 percent of the amount 
     appropriated under such subsection for such fiscal year in 
     excess of $110,000,000 for making grants under section 303 or 
     320.
       ``(2) Appropriations exceeding $150,000,000.--If the total 
     amount appropriated under subsection (a) for a fiscal year 
     exceeds $150,000,000, the Secretary shall use not less than 7 
     percent of the amount appropriated under such subsection for 
     such fiscal year in excess of $150,000,000 for making grants 
     under section 303 or 320.''.
       (i) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 303(b)(2) of the Family Violence Prevention and 
     Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10402(b)(2)) is amended, in the 
     second sentence, by striking ``(D), (E) and (F)'' and 
     inserting ``(D), (E), (F), and (G)''.
       (2) Section 306 of the Family Violence Prevention and 
     Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10405) is amended, in the second 
     sentence, by striking ``section 303(a)(2)(B) through 
     303(a)(2)(F)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (B) through (G) 
     of section 303(a)(2)''.
       (3) Section 309(6) of the Family Violence Prevention and 
     Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10408(6)) is amended by striking 
     ``the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the 
     Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands'' and inserting ``the 
     United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, and the combined Freely Associated 
     States''.
       (4) Section 311(c) of the Family Violence Prevention and 
     Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10410(c)) is amended by striking 
     ``the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and 
     the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands'' and inserting 
     ``the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, and the Freely Associated States''.

     SEC. 203. VICTIMS OF ABUSE INSURANCE PROTECTION.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) Abuse.--The term ``abuse'' means the occurrence of 1 or 
     more of the following acts by a current or former household 
     or family member, intimate partner, or caretaker:
       (A) Attempting to cause or causing another person bodily 
     injury, physical harm, substantial emotional distress, 
     psychological trauma, rape, sexual assault, or involuntary 
     sexual intercourse.
       (B) Engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly 
     committing acts toward another person, including following 
     the person without proper authority and under circumstances 
     that place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or 
     physical harm.
       (C) Subjecting another person to false imprisonment or 
     kidnaping.
       (D) Attempting to cause or causing damage to property so as 
     to intimidate or attempt to control the behavior of another 
     person.
       (2) Adverse action.--The term ``adverse action'' means--
       (A) denying, refusing to issue, renew, or reissue, or 
     canceling or otherwise terminating an insurance policy or 
     health benefit plan;
       (B) restricting, excluding, or limiting insurance or health 
     benefit plan coverage or denying or limiting payment of a 
     claim incurred by an insured, except as otherwise permitted 
     or required by State laws relating to life insurance 
     beneficiaries; or
       (C) adding a premium differential to any insurance policy 
     or health benefit plan.
       (3) Health benefit plan.--The term ``health benefit plan'' 
     means any public or private entity or program that provides 
     for payments for health care, including--
       (A) a group health plan (as defined in section 607 of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
     1167)) or a multiple employer welfare arrangement (as defined 
     in section 3(40) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1102(40)) that 
     provides health benefits;
       (B) any arrangement consisting of a hospital or medical 
     expense incurred policy or certificate, hospital or medical 
     service plan contract, or health maintenance organization 
     subscriber contract;
       (C) workers' compensation or similar insurance to the 
     extent that it relates to workers' compensation medical 
     benefits (as defined by the Federal Trade Commission); and
       (D) automobile medical insurance to the extent that it 
     relates to medical benefits (as defined by the Federal Trade 
     Commission).
       (4) Health carrier.--The term ``health carrier'' means a 
     person that contracts or offers to contract on a risk-
     assuming basis to provide, deliver, arrange for, pay for, or 
     reimburse any of the cost of health care services, including 
     a sickness and accident insurance company, a health 
     maintenance organization, a nonprofit hospital and health 
     service corporation or any other entity providing a plan of 
     health insurance, health benefits, or health services.
       (5) Innocent insured.--The term ``innocent insured'' means 
     a subject of abuse who--
       (A) is insured under the same policy as the abuser; and
       (B) is not, taking into account all the facts and 
     circumstances, the cause of any claim incurred or any claim 
     that may incur.
       (6) Insured.--The term ``insured'' means a party named on a 
     policy, certificate, or health benefit plan, including an 
     individual, corporation, partnership, association, 
     unincorporated organization, or any similar entity, as the 
     person with legal rights to the benefits provided by the 
     policy, certificate, or health benefit plan, including (for 
     purposes of group insurance) a person who is a beneficiary 
     covered by a group policy, certificate, or health benefit 
     plan, and including (for purposes of life insurance) the 
     person whose life is covered under an insurance policy.
       (7) Insurer.--The term ``insurer'' means any person, 
     reciprocal exchange, interinsurer, Lloyds insurer, fraternal 
     benefit society, or other legal entity engaged in the 
     business of insurance, including agents, brokers, adjusters, 
     and third party administrators, and includes health benefit 
     plans, health carriers, and life, disability, and property 
     and casualty insurers.
       (8) Personal identifying information.--The term ``personal 
     identifying information'' means information that identifies 
     an individual, including an individual's photograph, social 
     security number, driver identification number, name, address, 
     telephone number, place of employment, and medical, 
     disability, or abuse status.
       (9) Policy.--The term ``policy'' means a contract of 
     insurance, certificate, indemnity, suretyship, or annuity 
     issued, proposed for issuance, or intended for issuance by an 
     insurer, including endorsements or riders to an insurance 
     policy or contract.
       (10) Subject of abuse.--The term ``subject of abuse'' means 
     a person--
       (A) against whom an act of abuse has been directed;
       (B) who has prior or current injuries, illnesses, or 
     disorders that resulted from abuse;
       (C) who seeks, may have sought, or had reason to seek 
     medical or psychological treatment for abuse or protection or 
     shelter from abuse; or
       (D) who has incurred or may incur a claim as a result of 
     abuse.
       (b) Acts Against Subjects of Abuse.--
       (1) Discriminatory acts prohibited.--
       (A) In general.--No insurer may, directly or indirectly, 
     take any adverse action against an applicant or insured on 
     the basis that the applicant or insured, or any person 
     employed by the applicant or insured or with whom the 
     applicant or insured is known to have a relationship or 
     association is, has been, or may be the subject of abuse.
       (B) Innocent insured.--No insurer may, directly or 
     indirectly, take any adverse action against an innocent 
     insured.
       (2) Reasons for adverse actions.--An insurer that takes an 
     adverse action against a known subject of abuse shall advise 
     the applicant or insured of the specific reasons for the 
     action in writing. Reference to general underwriting 
     practices or guidelines shall not constitute a specific 
     reason.
       (3) Use of information.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an 
     insurer, and any officer, employee, or contractor thereof, 
     shall not knowingly disclose or otherwise make available to 
     any person or entity personal identifying information about a 
     subject of abuse.
       (B) Exception.--Personal identifying information referred 
     to in subparagraph (A) may be disclosed--
       (i) with the informed, written consent of the subject of 
     abuse at the time the disclosure is sought;
       (ii) if such information is necessary for the provision of 
     or the payment for services provided by the insurer or is 
     incident to the ordinary course of business of the insurer; 
     or
       (iii) to a law enforcement agency pursuant to a warrant 
     issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an 
     equivalent State warrant, a grand jury subpoena, or a court 
     order.
       (C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (B) 
     shall be construed to permit an insurer to disclose personal 
     identifying information about a subject of abuse to a current 
     or former household or family member, intimate partner, or 
     caretaker of the subject of abuse.
       (c) Enforcement.--
       (1) Federal trade commission.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal Trade Commission shall have 
     the power to examine and investigate any insurer to determine 
     whether such insurer has been, or is, in violation of 
     subsection (b) if the violation involved is not prohibited 
     under other Federal or State law or is prohibited under State 
     law but in the opinion of the Commission is not being 
     enforced by the State.

[[Page 785]]

       (B) Remedies.--If the Federal Trade Commission determines 
     that an insurer has been, or is, in violation of subsection 
     (b)--
       (i) in the case of a violation of Federal or State law, the 
     Commission shall transmit such information to the appropriate 
     enforcement authority; and
       (ii) in the case of a violation that is not prohibited 
     under other Federal or State law, or is prohibited under 
     State law but in the opinion of the Commission is not being 
     enforced by the State, the Commission may take action against 
     such insurer as if the insurer was in violation of section 5 
     of the Federal Trade Commission Act by issuing a cease and 
     desist order, which may include any individual relief 
     warranted under the circumstances, including temporary, 
     preliminary, and permanent injunctive and compensatory 
     relief.
       (2) Private cause of action.--
       (A) In general.--An applicant or insured who believes that 
     the applicant or insured has been affected by a violation 
     under subsection (b) may bring an action against the insurer 
     in a Federal or State court of original jurisdiction.
       (B) Remedies.--In an action under subparagraph (A), upon 
     proof of conduct of a violation of subsection (b) by a 
     preponderance of the evidence, the court may award 
     appropriate relief, including--
       (i) temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive 
     relief;
       (ii) actual damages, in an amount that is not less than 
     liquidated damages in the amount of $5,000 per violation;
       (iii) punitive damages;
       (iv) reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs 
     reasonably incurred, including the costs of expert witnesses; 
     and
       (v) such other preliminary and equitable relief as the 
     court determines to be appropriate.
       (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to prohibit a life insurer from declining to issue 
     a life insurance policy if the applicant or prospective owner 
     of the policy is or would be designated as a beneficiary of 
     the policy and if--
       (1) the applicant or prospective owner of the policy lacks 
     an insurable interest in the insured; or
       (2) the applicant or prospective owner of the policy is 
     known, on the basis of police or court records, to have 
     committed an act of abuse against the proposed insured.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect 
     to any action taken after December 31, 1998.

     SEC. 204. NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOTLINE.

       (a) Reauthorization.--Section 316(f)(1) of the Family 
     Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10416(f)(1)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under 
     section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out this 
     section--
       ``(A) $3,600,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(B) $3,800,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(C) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.
       (b) Report by Grant Recipients.--Section 316 of the Family 
     Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10416) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Report by Grant Recipients.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, each recipient of a grant under 
     this section shall prepare and submit to the Secretary a 
     report that contains--
       ``(A) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the activities 
     carried out by the recipient with amounts received under this 
     section; and
       ``(B) such other information as the Secretary may 
     prescribe.
       ``(2) Notice and public comment.--Before renewing any grant 
     under this section for a recipient, the Secretary shall 
     publish in the Federal Register a copy of the report 
     submitted by the recipient under this subsection and allow 
     not less than 90 days for notice of and opportunity for 
     public comment on the published report.''.

     SEC. 205. FEDERAL VICTIMS' COUNSELORS.

       Section 40114 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 1910)) 
     is amended by striking ``Columbia)--'' and all that follows 
     before the period and inserting ``Columbia) $1,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2000 through 2002''.

     SEC. 206. BATTERED WOMEN'S EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION.

       (a) Entitlement to Leave for Non-Federal Employees.--
       (1) Definitions.--Section 101 of the Family and Medical 
     Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2611) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(14) Addressing domestic violence and its effects.--The 
     term `addressing domestic violence and its effects' means--
       ``(A) seeking medical attention for or recovering from 
     injuries caused by domestic violence;
       ``(B) seeking legal assistance or remedies, including 
     communicating with the police or an attorney, or 
     participating in any legal proceeding, related to domestic 
     violence;
       ``(C) obtaining psychological or other counseling related 
     to experiences of domestic violence;
       ``(D) participating in safety planning and other actions to 
     increase safety from future domestic violence, including 
     temporary or permanent relocation;
       ``(E) being unable to attend or perform work due to an 
     incident of domestic violence, including an act or threat of 
     violence, stalking, coercion, or harassment, occurring within 
     the previous 72 hours; and
       ``(F) participating in any other activity necessitated by 
     domestic violence that must be undertaken during the hours of 
     employment involved.
       ``(15) Domestic violence.--The term `domestic violence' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 2003 of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-
     2).''.
       (2) Leave requirement.--Section 102 of the Family and 
     Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2612) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(E) In order to care for the son, daughter, or parent of 
     the employee, if such son, daughter, or parent is addressing 
     domestic violence and its effects.
       ``(F) Because the employee is addressing domestic violence 
     and its effects, which make the employee unable to perform 
     the functions of the position of such employee.'';
       (B) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Domestic violence.--Leave under subparagraph (E) or 
     (F) of subsection (a)(1) may be taken by an eligible employee 
     intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule. The taking of 
     leave intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule pursuant 
     to this paragraph shall not result in a reduction in the 
     total amount of leave to which the employee is entitled under 
     subsection (a) beyond the amount of leave actually taken.'';
       (C) in subsection (d)(2)(B), by striking ``(C) or (D)'' and 
     inserting ``(C), (D), (E), or (F)''; and
       (D) in subsection (e)(2), by striking ``or (D)'' and 
     inserting ``, (D), (E), or (F)''.
       (3) Certification.--Section 103 of the Family and Medical 
     Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2613) is amended--
       (A) in the heading of the section, by inserting before the 
     period the following: ``; CONFIDENTIALITY''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Domestic Violence.--In determining if an employee 
     meets the requirements of subparagraph (E) or (F) of section 
     102(a)(1), the employer of an employee may require the 
     employee to provide--
       ``(1) documentation of the domestic violence involved, such 
     as a police or court record, or documentation of the domestic 
     violence from a shelter worker, attorney, member of the 
     clergy, or medical or other professional from whom the 
     employee has sought assistance in addressing domestic 
     violence and its effects; or
       ``(2) other corroborating evidence, such as a statement 
     from any other individual with knowledge of the circumstances 
     that provide the basis for the claim of domestic violence, or 
     physical evidence of domestic violence, such as a photograph 
     or torn or bloody clothing.
       ``(g) Confidentiality.--All evidence provided to the 
     employer under subsection (f) of domestic violence 
     experienced by an employee or the son, daughter, or parent of 
     an employee, including a statement of an employee, any 
     corroborating evidence, and the fact that an employee has 
     requested leave for the purpose of addressing, or caring for 
     a son, daughter, or parent who is addressing, domestic 
     violence and its effects, shall be retained in the strictest 
     confidence by the employer, except to the extent that 
     disclosure is consented to by the employee in a case in which 
     disclosure is necessary to protect the safety of the employee 
     or a co-worker of the employee, or requested by the employee 
     to document domestic violence to a court or agency.''.
       (b) Entitlement to Leave for Federal Employees.--
       (1) Definitions.--Section 6381 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) at the end of paragraph (5), by striking ``and'';
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) the term `addressing domestic violence and its 
     effects' means--
       ``(A) seeking medical attention for or recovering from 
     injuries caused by domestic violence;
       ``(B) seeking legal assistance or remedies, including 
     communicating with the police or an attorney, or 
     participating in any legal proceeding, related to domestic 
     violence;
       ``(C) obtaining psychological or other counseling related 
     to experiences of domestic violence;
       ``(D) participating in safety planning and other actions to 
     increase safety from future domestic violence, including 
     temporary or permanent relocation;
       ``(E) being unable to attend or perform work due to an 
     incident of domestic violence, including an act or threat of 
     violence, stalking, coercion, or harassment, occurring within 
     the previous 72 hours; and
       ``(F) participating in any other activity necessitated by 
     domestic violence that must be

[[Page 786]]

     undertaken during the hours of employment involved; and
       ``(8) the term `domestic violence' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 2003 of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2).''.
       (2) Leave requirement.--Section 6382 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(E) In order to care for the son, daughter, or parent of 
     the employee, if such son, daughter, or parent is addressing 
     domestic violence and its effects.
       ``(F) Because the employee is addressing domestic violence 
     and its effects, which make the employee unable to perform 
     the functions of the position of such employee.'';
       (B) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Leave under subparagraph (E) or (F) of subsection 
     (a)(1) may be taken by an employee intermittently or on a 
     reduced leave schedule. The taking of leave intermittently or 
     on a reduced leave schedule pursuant to this paragraph shall 
     not result in a reduction in the total amount of leave to 
     which the employee is entitled under subsection (a) beyond 
     the amount of leave actually taken.'';
       (C) in subsection (d), by striking ``(C), or (D)'' and 
     inserting ``(C), (D), (E), or (F)''; and
       (D) in subsection (e)(2), by striking ``or (D)'' and 
     inserting ``, (D), (E), or (F)''.
       (3) Certification.--Section 6383 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in the heading of the section, by adding at the end the 
     following: ``; confidentiality''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) In determining if an employee meets the requirements 
     of subparagraph (E) or (F) of section 6382(a)(1), the 
     employing agency of an employee may require the employee to 
     provide--
       ``(1) documentation of the domestic violence involved, such 
     as a police or court record, or documentation of the domestic 
     violence from a shelter worker, attorney, member of the 
     clergy, or medical or other professional from whom the 
     employee has sought assistance in addressing domestic 
     violence and its effects; or
       ``(2) other corroborating evidence, such as a statement 
     from any other individual with knowledge of the circumstances 
     that provide the basis for the claim of domestic violence, or 
     physical evidence of domestic violence, such as a photograph 
     or torn or bloody clothing.
       ``(g) All evidence provided to the employing agency under 
     subsection (f) of domestic violence experienced by an 
     employee or the son, daughter, or parent of an employee, 
     including a statement of an employee, any corroborating 
     evidence, and the fact that an employee has requested leave 
     for the purpose of addressing, or caring for a son, daughter, 
     or parent who is addressing, domestic violence and its 
     effects, shall be retained in the strictest confidence by the 
     employing agency, except to the extent that disclosure is 
     consented to by the employee in a case in which disclosure is 
     necessary to protect the safety of the employee or a co-
     worker of the employee, or requested by the employee to 
     document domestic violence to a court or agency.''.
       (c) Effect on Other Laws and Employment Benefits.--
       (1) More protective laws, agreements, programs, and 
     plans.--Nothing in this section or the amendments made by 
     this section shall be construed to supersede any provision of 
     any Federal, State, or local law, collective bargaining 
     agreement, or other employment benefit program or plan that 
     provides greater leave benefits for employed victims of 
     domestic violence than the rights established under this 
     section or such amendments.
       (2) Less protective laws, agreements, programs, and 
     plans.--The rights established for employees under this 
     section or the amendments made by this section shall not be 
     diminished by any State or local law, collective bargaining 
     agreement, or employment benefit program or plan.
       (d) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect on the date that is 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 207. ENSURING UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.

       (a) Unemployment Compensation.--Section 3304 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (18);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (19) as paragraph (20); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (18) the following:
       ``(19) compensation is to be provided where an individual 
     is separated from employment due to circumstances directly 
     resulting from the individual's experience of domestic 
     violence; and''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Construction.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(19), an 
     employee's separation from employment shall be treated as due 
     to circumstances directly resulting from the individual's 
     experience of domestic violence if the separation resulted 
     from--
       ``(A) the employee's reasonable fear of future domestic 
     violence at or en route to or from the employee's place of 
     employment;
       ``(B) the employee's wish to relocate to another geographic 
     area in order to avoid future domestic violence against the 
     employee or the employee's family;
       ``(C) the employee's need to recover from traumatic stress 
     resulting from the employee's experience of domestic 
     violence;
       ``(D) the employer's denial of the employee's request for 
     the temporary leave from employment to address domestic 
     violence and its effects authorized by subparagraphs (E) and 
     (F) of section 102(a)(1) of the Family and Medical Leave Act 
     of 1993; or
       ``(E) any other circumstance in which domestic violence 
     causes the employee to reasonably believe that termination of 
     employment is necessary for the future safety of the employee 
     or the employee's family.
       ``(2) Reasonable efforts to retain employment.--For 
     purposes of subsection (a)(19), if State law requires the 
     employee to have made reasonable efforts to retain employment 
     as a condition for receiving unemployment compensation, such 
     requirement shall be met if the employee--
       ``(A) sought protection from, or assistance in responding 
     to, domestic violence, including calling the police or 
     seeking legal, social work, medical, clergy, or other 
     assistance;
       ``(B) sought safety, including refuge in a shelter or 
     temporary or permanent relocation, whether or not the 
     employee actually obtained such refuge or accomplished such 
     relocation; or
       ``(C) reasonably believed that options such as taking a 
     leave of absence, transferring jobs, or receiving an 
     alternative work schedule would not be sufficient to 
     guarantee the employee or the employee's family's safety.
       ``(3) Active search for employment.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a)(19), if State law requires the employee to 
     actively search for employment after separation from 
     employment as a condition for receiving unemployment 
     compensation, such requirement shall be treated as met where 
     the employee is temporarily unable to actively search for 
     employment because the employee is engaged in seeking safety 
     or relief for the employee or the employee's family from 
     domestic violence, including--
       ``(A) going into hiding or relocating or attempting to do 
     so, including activities associated with such hiding or 
     relocation, such as seeking to obtain sufficient shelter, 
     food, schooling for children, or other necessities of life 
     for the employee or the employee's family;
       ``(B) actively pursuing legal protection or remedies, 
     including meeting with the police, going to court to make 
     inquiries or file papers, meeting with attorneys, or 
     attending court proceedings; or
       ``(C) participating in psychological, social, or religious 
     counseling or support activities to assist the employee in 
     ending domestic violence.
       ``(4) Provision of information to meet certain 
     requirements.--In determining if an employee meets the 
     requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), the 
     unemployment agency of the State in which an employee is 
     requesting unemployment compensation by reason of subsection 
     (a)(19) may require the employee to provide--
       ``(A) documentation of the domestic violence, such as 
     police or court records, or documentation of the domestic 
     violence from a shelter worker or an employee of a domestic 
     violence program, an attorney, a clergy member, or a medical 
     or other professional from whom the employee has sought 
     assistance in addressing domestic violence and its effects; 
     or
       ``(B) other corroborating evidence, such as a statement 
     from any other individual with knowledge of the circumstances 
     which provide the basis for the claim, or physical evidence 
     of domestic violence, such as photographs, torn or bloody 
     clothes.
     All evidence of domestic violence experienced by an employee, 
     including an employee's statement, any corroborating 
     evidence, and the fact that an employee has applied for or 
     inquired about unemployment compensation available by reason 
     of subsection (a)(19) shall be retained in the strictest 
     confidence by such State unemployment agency, except to the 
     extent consented to by the employee where disclosure is 
     necessary to protect the employee's safety.
       ``(5) Effect of claims.--Claims filed for unemployment 
     compensation solely by reason of subsection (a)(19) shall be 
     disregarded in determining an employer's State unemployment 
     taxes based on unemployment experience.''.
       (b) Social Security Personnel Training.--Section 303(a) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 503(a)) is amended by 
     redesignating paragraphs (4) through (10) as paragraphs (5) 
     through (11), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph 
     (3) the following:
       ``(4) Such methods of administration as will ensure that 
     claims reviewers and hearing personnel are adequately trained 
     in the nature and dynamics of claims for unemployment 
     compensation based on domestic violence under section 
     3304(a)(20) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and in 
     methods of ascertaining and keeping confidential information 
     about possible experiences of domestic violence to ensure 
     that requests for unemployment compensation based on domestic 
     violence are reliably screened, identified,

[[Page 787]]

     and adjudicated, and to ensure that complete confidentiality 
     is provided for the employee's claim and submitted 
     evidence.''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 3306 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(u) Domestic Violence.--In this chapter, the term 
     `domestic violence' has the meaning given the term in section 
     2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
     Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2).''.
       (d) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply in the case of 
     compensation paid for weeks beginning 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Meeting of state legislature.--If the Secretary of 
     Labor identifies a State as requiring a change to its 
     statutes or regulations in order to comply with the 
     amendments made by this section, the amendments made by this 
     Act shall apply in the case of compensation paid for weeks 
     beginning after the earlier of--
       (A) the date the State changes its statutes or regulations 
     in order to comply with the amendments made by this section; 
     or
       (B) the end of the first session of the State legislature 
     which begins after the date of enactment of this Act or which 
     began prior to such date and remained in session for not less 
     than 25 calendar days after such date;
     except that in no case shall the amendments made by this Act 
     apply before the date which is 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act. For purposes of the preceding 
     sentence, the term ``session'' means a regular, special, 
     budget, or other session of a State legislature.

     SEC. 208. BATTERED IMMIGRANT WOMEN.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the goal of the immigration protections for battered 
     immigrants included in the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 
     was to remove immigration laws as a barrier that kept 
     battered immigrant women and children locked in abusive 
     relationships;
       (2) providing battered immigrant women and children who 
     were experiencing domestic violence at home with protection 
     against deportation allows them to obtain protection orders 
     against their abusers and frees them to cooperate with law 
     enforcement and prosecutors in criminal cases brought against 
     their abusers and the abusers of their children; and
       (3) there are several groups of battered immigrant women 
     and children who do not have access to the immigration 
     protections of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which 
     means that their abusers are virtually immune from 
     prosecution because their victims can be deported and the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service cannot offer them 
     protection no matter how compelling their case under existing 
     law.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       (1) to promote criminal prosecutions of all persons who 
     commit acts of battery or extreme cruelty against immigrant 
     women and children;
       (2) to offer protection against domestic violence occurring 
     in family and intimate relationships that are covered in 
     State protection order, domestic violence, and family law 
     statutes; and
       (3) to correct erosions of Violence Against Women Act 
     immigration protections that occurred as a result of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996.
       (c) Effect of Changes in Abusers' Citizenship Status.--(1) 
     Section 204(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new clause:
       ``(v) For the purposes of any petition filed under clause 
     (iii) or (iv), denaturalization, loss or renunciation, or 
     changes to the abuser's citizenship status after filing of 
     the petition shall not preclude the classification of the 
     eligible self-petitioning spouse or child as an immediate 
     relative.''.
       (2) Section 204(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new clause:
       ``(iv)(I) For the purposes of petitions filed or approved 
     under clauses (ii) and (iii), loss of lawful permanent 
     residence status by a spouse or parent after the filing of a 
     petition under that clause shall not preclude approval of the 
     petition, and, for an approved petition, shall not affect the 
     alien's ability to adjust status under section 245(a) and (c) 
     or obtain status as a lawful permanent resident based on the 
     approved self-petition under clauses (ii) and (iii).
       ``(II) Upon the lawful permanent resident spouse or parent 
     becoming a United States citizen through naturalization, 
     acquisition of citizenship, or other means, any petition 
     filed with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and 
     pending or approved under section 204(a)(1)(B) on behalf of 
     an alien who has been battered or subjected to extreme 
     cruelty may be deemed to be a petition filed under section 
     204(a)(1)(A) of this Act even if the acquisition of 
     citizenship occurs after divorce.''.
       (d) Determinations of Good Moral Character.--
       (1) Cancellations of removal; suspensions of deportation.--
     Section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1229b) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Good moral character determinations.--For the 
     purposes of making `good moral character' determinations 
     under paragraph (2), the Attorney General is not limited by 
     the criminal court record and may make a finding of good 
     moral character, notwithstanding the existence of 
     disqualifying criminal act or criminal conviction, in the 
     case of an alien who has been battered or subjected to 
     extreme cruelty but who--
       ``(i) has been convicted of, or who pled guilty to, 
     violating a court order issued to protect the alien;
       ``(ii) was convicted of, or pled guilty to, prostitution, 
     if the alien was forced into prostitution by an abuser;
       ``(iii) was convicted of or pled guilty to committing a 
     crime if the alien committed the crime under duress from the 
     person who battered or subjected the alien to extreme 
     cruelty; or
       ``(iv) was convicted of or pled guilty to a domestic 
     violence-related crime if the Attorney General determines 
     that the alien acted in self-defense.
       ``(5) Inclusion of other aliens in petition.--An alien 
     applying for relief under section 244(a)(3) (as in effect 
     before the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) or this subsection may 
     include--
       ``(A) the alien's children in the alien's application if 
     such children are physically present in the United States at 
     the time of application, and, if the alien is found eligible 
     for suspension, the Attorney General may adjust the status of 
     the alien's children; or
       ``(B) the alien's parent in the alien's application in the 
     case of an application filed by an alien who was abused by a 
     citizen or lawful permanent resident parent and, if the alien 
     is found eligible for suspension, the Attorney General may 
     adjust the status of both the alien applicant and the alien's 
     parent.
       ``(6) Determinations under suspension of deportation.--For 
     the purposes of making good moral character determinations 
     under section 244(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (as in effect before the enactment of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996), 
     the Attorney General is not limited by the criminal court 
     record and may make a finding of good moral character, 
     notwithstanding the existence of a disqualifying criminal act 
     or criminal conviction, in the case of an alien who has been 
     battered or subjected to extreme cruelty but who--
       ``(i) has been convicted of, or who pled guilty to, 
     violating a court order issued to protect the alien;
       ``(ii) has been convicted of, or who pled guilty to, 
     prostitution if the alien was forced into prostitution by an 
     abuser;
       ``(iii) has been convicted of, or pled guilty to 
     committing, a crime under duress from the person who battered 
     or subjected the alien to extreme cruelty; or
       ``(iv) was convicted of, or pled guilty to, a domestic 
     violence-related crime if the Attorney General determines 
     that the alien acted in self-defense.
       (2) Immediate relative status.--Section 204(a)(1)(A) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(vi)(I) For the purposes of making good moral character 
     determinations under this subparagraph, the Attorney General 
     is not limited by the criminal court record and may make a 
     finding of good moral character, notwithstanding the 
     existence of a disqualifying criminal act or criminal 
     conviction, in the case of an alien who otherwise qualifies 
     for relief under section 204(a)(1)(A) (iii) or (iv), but 
     who--
       ``(aa) has been convicted of, or who pled guilty to, 
     violating a court order issued to protect the alien;
       ``(bb) was convicted of, or pled guilty to, prostitution if 
     the alien was forced into prostitution by an abuser;
       ``(cc) was convicted of, or pled guilty to, committing a 
     crime under duress from the person who battered or subjected 
     the alien to extreme cruelty; or
       ``(dd) was convicted of, or pled guilty to, a domestic 
     violence-related crime, if the Attorney General determines 
     that the alien acted in self-defense.
       ``(II) After finding that an alien has been battered or 
     subjected to extreme cruelty and is otherwise eligible for 
     relief under section 204(a)(1)(A) (iii) or (iv), the Attorney 
     General may make a finding of `good moral character' with 
     respect to the alien, notwithstanding the existence of a 
     disqualifying criminal act or criminal conviction.''.
       (3) Second preference immigration status--Section 
     204(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1154(a)(1)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new clause:
       ``(v)(I) For the purposes of making good moral character 
     determinations under this subparagraph, the Attorney General 
     is not limited by the criminal court record and may make a 
     finding of good moral character, notwithstanding the 
     existence of a disqualifying criminal act or criminal 
     conviction, in the case of an alien who otherwise qualifies 
     for relief under section 204(a)(1)(B) (ii) and (iii), but 
     who--

[[Page 788]]

       ``(aa) has been convicted of, or who pled guilty to, 
     violating a court order issued to protect the alien;
       ``(bb) was convicted of, or pled guilty to, prostitution 
     where the alien was forced into prostitution by an abuser;
       ``(cc) was convicted of, or pled guilty to, committing a 
     crime under duress from the person who battered or subjected 
     the alien to extreme cruelty; or
       ``(dd) was convicted of, or pled guilty to, a domestic 
     violence-related crime, if the Attorney General determines 
     that the alien acted in self-defense.
       ``(II) After finding that an alien has been battered or 
     subjected to extreme cruelty and is otherwise eligible for 
     relief under section 204(a)(1)(B) (ii) or (iii), the Attorney 
     General may in the Attorney General's sole discretion make a 
     finding of good moral character with respect to the alien, 
     notwithstanding the existence of a disqualifying criminal act 
     or criminal conviction.''.
       (e) Waivers of Inadmissibility.--(1) Section 212 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(p) The Attorney General, in the Attorney General's 
     discretion, may waive any provision of section 212 (other 
     than subsection (a) (3), (10)(A), (10)(D), and (10)(E)) for 
     humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is 
     otherwise in the public interest for any alien who qualifies 
     for--
       ``(1) status under clause (iii) or (iv) of section 
     204(a)(1)(A) or classification under clause (ii) or (iii) of 
     section 204(a)(1)(B); or
       ``(2) relief under section 240A(b)(2) or 244(a)(3) (as in 
     effect before the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
     and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996).''.
       (2) Section 212(h)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(h)(1)) is amended--
       (A) at the end of subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'';
       (B) at the end of subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' and 
     inserting ``or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) in the case of an alien who qualifies for status 
     under clause (iii) or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) or 
     classification under clause (ii) or (iii) of section 
     204(a)(1)(B) or who qualifies for relief under section 
     240A(b)(2), or section 244(a)(3) (as in effect before the 
     enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996), if it is established to the 
     satisfaction of the the Attorney General that the alien's 
     admission would further humanitarian purposes, ensure family 
     unity, or otherwise be in the public interest; and''.
       (3) Section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(G) Exceptions.--The provisions of this paragraph shall 
     not apply to deny admissibility to an alien if the Attorney 
     General has approved the alien's self-petition or application 
     pursuant to section 204(a)(1)(A) (iii) or (iv), 204(a)(1)(B) 
     (ii) or (iii), 240A(b)(2), or 244(a)(3) (as in effect before 
     the title III-A effective date in section 309 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101 note).
       (f) Waiver of Certain Removal Grounds.--Section 
     237(a)(2)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1227(a)(2)(E)) is amended by inserting at the end the 
     following new clause:
       ``(iii) Waiver.--The Attorney General may waive the 
     application of clauses (i) and (ii)--

       ``(I) upon determination that--

       ``(aa) the alien was acting in self-defense,
       ``(bb) the alien was not the primary perpetrator of 
     violence in the relationship,
       ``(cc) the alien was found to have violated a protection 
     order intended to protect the alien, or
       ``(dd) the alien was convicted of committing a crime under 
     duress from the person who subjected the alien to battering 
     or extreme cruelty, or

       ``(II) for humanitarian purposes.''.

       (g) Procedure for Granting Immigrant Status.--
       (1) Definition.--Section 101(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(50) The term `intended spouse' means any alien who meets 
     the criteria set forth in section 204(j)(1)(B) or 
     204(k)(1)(B).''.
       (2) Immediate relative status.--
       (A) Self-petitioning spouses.--Section 204(a)(1)(A)(iii) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1154(a)(1)(A)(iii)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(iii) An alien who is described in subsection (j) may 
     file a petition with the Attorney General under this clause 
     for classification of the alien (and any child of the alien 
     if such a child has not been classified under clause (iv)) 
     under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) if the alien demonstrates to 
     the Attorney General that--
       ``(I) the alien is residing in the United States (unless 
     the alien's spouse, intended spouse, or parent is an employee 
     of the Department of State or a member of the United States 
     Armed Forces stationed abroad);
       ``(II) the marriage or the intent to marry the United 
     States citizen was entered into in good faith by the alien; 
     and
       ``(III) during the marriage or relationship intended by the 
     alien to be legally a marriage, the alien or a child of the 
     alien has been battered or has been the subject of extreme 
     cruelty perpetrated by the alien's spouse or intended 
     spouse.''.
       (B) Definition.--Section 204 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act is amended (8 U.S.C. 1154) by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(j) Definition.--An alien described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(A)(iii) is an alien--
       ``(1)(A) who is the spouse of a citizen of the United 
     States; or
       ``(B)(i) who believed in good faith that he or she had 
     married a citizen of the United States;
       ``(ii) whose marriage to such citizen would otherwise meet 
     the definition of qualifying marriage under section 
     216(d)(1)(A)(i); and
       ``(iii) who otherwise meets any applicable requirements 
     under this Act to establish the existence of and bona fides 
     of a marriage;
     but whose marriage is not legitimate solely because of the 
     bigamy of such citizen of the United States;
       ``(2) who is a person of good moral character;
       ``(3) who is eligible to be classified as an immediate 
     relative under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) or who would have been 
     so classified but for the bigamy of the citizen of the United 
     States that the alien intended to marry; and
       ``(4) who has resided in the United States with the alien's 
     spouse or intended spouse, or has resided within or outside 
     the territory of the United States with the citizen spouse at 
     the assigned foreign duty station if the alien's spouse or 
     intended spouse is an employee of the Department of State or 
     a member of the United States Armed Forces stationed 
     abroad.''.
       (C) Self-petitioning children.--Section 204(a)(1)(A)(iv) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1154(a)(1)(A)(iv)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(iv) An alien who is the child of a citizen of the United 
     States, who is a person of good moral character, who is 
     eligible to be classified as an immediate relative under 
     section 201(b)(2)(A)(i), and who has resided in the United 
     States with the citizen parent (or has resided within or 
     outside the territory of the United States with the citizen 
     parent at the assigned foreign duty station if the alien's 
     parent is an employee of the Department of State or a member 
     of the United States Armed Forces stationed abroad) may file 
     a petition with the Attorney General under this subparagraph 
     for classification of the alien under such section if the 
     alien demonstrates to the Attorney General that the alien is 
     residing in the United States (unless the alien's parent is 
     an employee of the Department of State or a member of the 
     United States Armed Forces stationed abroad) and during the 
     period of residence with the citizen parent in the United 
     States or at the assigned foreign duty station the alien has 
     been battered by or has been the subject of extreme cruelty 
     perpetrated by the alien's citizen parent.''.
       (D) Filing of petitions.--Section 204(a)(1)(A) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154 (a)(1)(A)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
       (vii) ``An alien who is the spouse, intended spouse, or 
     child filing under clause (iii) or (iv) of this subparagraph 
     of an employee of the Department of State or a member of the 
     United States Armed Forces stationed abroad eligible to file 
     a petition under this subsection shall file such petition 
     with the Attorney General.''.
       (3) Second preference immigration status.--
       (A) Self-petitioning spouses.--Section 204(a)(1)(B)(ii) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1154(a)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(ii) An alien who is described in subsection (k) may file 
     a petition with the Attorney General under this clause for 
     classification of the alien (and any child of the alien if 
     such a child has not been classified under clause (iii)) 
     under section 203(a)(2)(A) if the alien demonstrates to the 
     Attorney General that--
       ``(I) the alien is residing in the United States (unless 
     the alien's spouse, intended spouse, or child is an employee 
     of the Department of State or a member of the United States 
     Armed Forces stationed abroad);
       ``(II) the marriage or the intent to marry the lawful 
     permanent resident was entered into in good faith by the 
     alien; and
       ``(III) during the marriage or relationship intended by the 
     alien to be legally a marriage, the alien or a child of the 
     alien has been battered or has been the subject of extreme 
     cruelty perpetrated by the alien's spouse or intended 
     spouse.''.
       (B) Definition.--Section 204 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(k) Definition.--An alien described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(B)(ii) is an alien--
       ``(1)(A) who is the spouse of a lawful permanent resident 
     of the United States; or
       ``(B)(i) who believed in good faith that he or she had 
     married a lawful permanent resident of the United States;
       ``(ii) whose marriage to such lawful permanent resident 
     would otherwise meet the definition of qualifying marriage 
     under section 216(d)(1)(A)(i); and

[[Page 789]]

       ``(iii) who otherwise meets any applicable requirements 
     under this Act to establish the existence of and bona fides 
     of a marriage;
     but whose marriage is not legitimate solely because of the 
     bigamy of such lawful permanent resident of the United 
     States;
       ``(2) who is a person of good moral character;
       ``(3) who is eligible to be classified as a spouse of an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence under section 
     203(a)(2)(A) or who would have been so classified but for the 
     bigamy of the lawful permanent resident of the United States 
     that the alien intended to marry; and
       ``(4) who has resided in the United States with the alien's 
     spouse or intended spouse, or has resided within or outside 
     the territory of the United States with the lawful permanent 
     resident spouse or intended spouse at the assigned foreign 
     duty station if the alien's spouse or intended spouse is an 
     employee of the Department of State or a member of the United 
     States Armed Forces stationed abroad.''.
       (C) Self-petitioning children.--Section 204(a)(1)(B)(iii) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1154(a)(1)(B)(iii)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(iii) An alien who is the child of an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence, who is a person of good 
     moral character, who is eligible for classification under 
     section 203(a)(2)(A), and who has resided in the United 
     States with the alien's permanent resident alien parent (or 
     has resided within or outside the territory of the United 
     States with the lawful permanent resident parent at the 
     assigned foreign duty station if the alien's parent is an 
     employee of the Department of State or a member of the United 
     States Armed Forces stationed abroad) may file a petition 
     with the Attorney General under this subparagraph for 
     classification of the alien under such section if the alien 
     demonstrates to the Attorney General that the alien is 
     residing in the United States (unless the alien's parent is 
     an employee of the Department of State or a member of the 
     United States Armed Forces stationed abroad) and during the 
     period of residence with the permanent resident parent in the 
     United States or at the assigned foreign duty station the 
     alien has been battered by or has been the subject of extreme 
     cruelty perpetrated by the alien's permanent resident 
     parent.''.
       (D) Filing of petitions.--Section 204(a)(1)(B) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154 (a)(1)(B)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(vi) An alien who is the spouse, intended spouse, or 
     child filing under clauses (ii) and (iii) of this 
     subparagraph of an employee of the Department of State or a 
     member of the United States Armed Forces stationed abroad 
     eligible to file a petition under this subsection shall file 
     such petition with the Attorney General.''.
       (h) Adjustment of Status.--(1) Section 245 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or the status of 
     any other alien having an approved petition for 
     classification under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (A)(v), 
     (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section 204(a)(1),'' after ``into the 
     United States'';
       (B) in subsections (c)(2) and (c)(4) by inserting ``or an 
     alien having an approved petition for classification under 
     subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (A)(v), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) 
     of section 204(a)(1),'' after ``other than an immediate 
     relative as defined in section 201(b)'' each place it 
     appears;
       (C) in subsection (c)(5), by inserting ``(other than an 
     alien having an approved petition for classification under 
     subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (A)(v), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) 
     of section 204(a)(1)),'' after ``an alien''; and
       (D) in subsection (c)(8), by inserting ``(other than an 
     alien having an approved petition for classification under 
     subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (A)(v), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) 
     of section 204(a)(1)),'' after ``any alien''.
       (2) The amendments made by paragraph (1) shall apply to 
     applications for adjustment of status pending on or made on 
     or after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (3) Section 245(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1255(d)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``This paragraph shall not apply to 
     aliens who seek adjustment of status on the basis of an 
     approved self-petition under clause (iii) or (iv) of section 
     204(a)(1)(A) or classification under clause (ii) or (iii) of 
     section 204(a)(1)(B).''.
       (i) Eliminating Time Limitations on Motions To Reopen 
     Removal and Deportation Proceedings for Victims of Domestic 
     Violence.--
       (1) Removal proceedings.--
       (A) In general.--Section 240(c)(6)(C) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(6)(C)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) Special rule for battered spouses and children.--
     There is no time limit on the filing of a motion to reopen, 
     and the deadline specified in subsection (b)(5)(C) does not 
     apply, if the basis of the motion is to apply for adjustment 
     of status based on a petition filed under clause (iii) or 
     (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A), clause (ii) or (iii) of section 
     204(a)(1)(B), or section 240A(b)(2) and if the motion to 
     reopen is accompanied by a cancellation of removal 
     application to be filed with the Attorney General or by a 
     copy of the self-petition that will be filed with the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service upon the granting of 
     the motion to reopen.''.
       (B) Effective date.--The amendments made by subparagraph 
     (A) shall take effect as if included in the enactment of 
     section 304 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996.
       (2) Deportation proceedings.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any limitation imposed by 
     law on motions to reopen deportation proceedings under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (as in effect before the 
     title III-A effective date in section 309 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101 note)), there is no time limit on the filing 
     of a motion to reopen such proceedings, and the deadline 
     specified in section 242B(c)(3) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (as so in effect) does not apply, if the 
     basis of the motion is to apply for relief under clause (iii) 
     or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, clause (ii) or (iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B) 
     of such Act, or section 244(a)(3) of such Act (as so in 
     effect) and if the motion to reopen is accompanied by a 
     suspension of deportation application to be filed with the 
     Attorney General or by a copy of the self-petition that will 
     be filed with the Immigration and Naturalization Service upon 
     the granting of the motion to reopen.
       (B) Applicability.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply to motions 
     filed by aliens who--
       (i) are, or were, in deportation proceedings under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (as in effect before the 
     title III-A effective date in section 309 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101 note)); and
       (ii) have become eligible to apply for relief under clause 
     (iii) or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, clause (ii) or (iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B) 
     of such Act, or section 244(a)(3) of such Act (as in effect 
     before the title III-A effective date in section 309 of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note)) as a result of the amendments 
     made by--

       (I) subtitle G of title IV of the Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 
     1953 et seq.); or
       (II) section XX03 of this title.

       (j) Cancellation of Removal; Adjustment of Status.--(1)(A) 
     Paragraph (1) of section 240A(d) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Termination of continuous period.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     for purposes of this section, any period of continuous 
     residence or continuous physical presence in the United 
     States shall be deemed to end when the alien is served a 
     notice to appear under section 239(a) or when the alien has 
     committed an offense referred to in section 212(a)(2) that 
     renders the alien inadmissible to the United States under 
     section 212(a)(2) or removable from the United States under 
     section 237(a)(2) or 237(a)(4), whichever is earliest.
       ``(B) Special rule for battered spouse or child.--For 
     purposes of subsection (b)(2), the service of a notice to 
     appear referred to in subparagraph (A) shall not be deemed to 
     end any period of continuous physical presence in the United 
     States.''.
       (B) Section 240A(e)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(C) Aliens in removal proceedings who applied for 
     cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(2).''.
       (C) The amendments made by subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall 
     take effect as if included in the enactment of section 304 of 
     the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
     Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 587).
       (2)(A) Section 309(c)(5)(C) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1101 note) is amended--
       (i) by amending the subparagraph heading to read as 
     follows:
       ``(C) Special rule for certain aliens granted temporary 
     protection from deportation and for battered spouses and 
     children.--''; and
       (ii) in clause (i)--
       (I) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (IV);
       (II) by striking the period at the end of subclause (V) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (III) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(VI) is an alien who was issued an order to show cause or 
     was in deportation proceedings prior to April 1, 1997, and 
     who applied for suspension of deportation under section 
     244(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as in 
     effect before the date of the enactment of this Act).''.

       (B) The amendments made by subparagraph (A) shall take 
     effect as if included in the enactment of section 309 of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note).
       (3) Section 240A(d)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows:

[[Page 790]]

       ``(2) An alien shall be considered to have failed to 
     maintain continuous physical presence in the United States 
     under subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) if the alien has departed 
     from the United States for any period in excess of 90 days or 
     for periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days. In the case 
     of an alien applying for cancellation of removal under 
     subsection (b)(2), the Attorney General may waive the 
     provisions of this subsection for humanitarian purposes, if 
     the alien demonstrates a substantial connection between the 
     absences and the battery or extreme cruelty forming the basis 
     of the application for cancellation of removal.''.
       (4) Section 244(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (as in effect before the title III-A effective date of 
     the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
     Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; division C; 110 Stat. 3009-
     625)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     Attorney General may waive the physical presence requirement 
     for humanitarian purposes if the alien demonstrates a 
     substantial connection between the absences and the battery 
     or extreme cruelty forming the basis of the application for 
     suspension of deportation.''.
       (k) Exception to Public Charge Grounds of 
     Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to--
       ``(i) an alien who qualifies for status as a spouse or 
     child of a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident 
     pursuant to clause (iii) or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) or 
     clause (ii) or (iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B);
       ``(ii) an alien who qualifies for status as the spouse or 
     child of a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident 
     under section 204(a)(1)(A) (i) or (ii) or section 
     204(a)(1)(B)(i) and who has been battered or subjected to 
     extreme cruelty; or
       ``(iii) derivatives and immediate relative children of 
     aliens under clause (i) or (ii) of this subparagraph.''.
       (l) Grants To Combat Violent Crimes Against Women.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2001 of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service and the Executive Office of 
     Immigration Review,'' after ``Indian tribal governments''; 
     and
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, immigration and 
     asylum officers, immigration judges,'' after ``law 
     enforcement officers'';
       (ii) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (iii) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) training justice system personnel on the immigration 
     provisions of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and the 
     ramifications of those provisions for victims of domestic 
     violence who appear in civil and criminal court proceedings 
     and potential immigration consequences for the perpetrators 
     of domestic violence.''.
       (2) Grants to encourage arrest policies.--Section 2101(c) 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796hh(c)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) certify that their laws, policies, and practices do 
     not discourage or prohibit prosecutors and law enforcement 
     officers from granting access to information about the 
     immigration status of a domestic violence perpetrator to the 
     victim, the child, or their advocate''.
       (3) Effect on other goals.--Section 287(g) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 
     identifying and reporting the alien status of a crime victim 
     or of a victim of a domestic violence crime shall not 
     supersede the goal of obtaining the cooperation of the victim 
     in the reporting and prosecution of such crime or the goal of 
     protecting the victim of such crime with a protection order 
     or other legal relief available to assist crime victims or 
     domestic violence victims under Federal or State laws.''.
       (m) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives a report on--
       (1) the number of and processing times of petitions under 
     section 204(a)(1)(A) (iii) and (iv) and 204(a)(1)(B) (ii) and 
     (iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act at district 
     offices of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and at 
     the regional office of the Service in St. Albans, Vermont;
       (2) the policy and procedures of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service by which an alien who has been 
     battered or subjected to extreme cruelty who is eligible for 
     suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal under 
     can place him or herself in deportation or removal 
     proceedings so that he or she may apply for suspension of 
     deportation or cancellation of removal, the number of 
     requests filed at each district office under this policy and 
     the number of these requests granted broken out by District; 
     and
       (3) the average length of time at each Immigration and 
     Naturalization office between the date that an alien who has 
     been subject to battering or extreme cruelty eligible for 
     suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal requests 
     to be placed in deportation or removal proceedings, and the 
     date that immigrant appears before an immigration judge to 
     file an application for suspension of deportation or 
     cancellation of removal.

     SEC. 209. OLDER WOMEN'S PROTECTION FROM VIOLENCE.

       (a) Violence Against Women Act of 1994 Amendments.--The 
     Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (108 Stat. 1902) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``Subtitle H--Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, Including 
     Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Against Older Individuals

     ``SEC. 40801. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subtitle:
       ``(1) In general.--The terms `elder abuse, neglect, and 
     exploitation', `domestic violence', and `older individual' 
     have the meanings given the terms in section 102 of the Older 
     Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3002).
       ``(2) Sexual assault.--The term `sexual assault' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 2003 of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796gg-2).

     ``SEC. 40802. LAW SCHOOL CLINICAL PROGRAMS ON ELDER ABUSE, 
                   NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION.

       ``The Attorney General shall make grants to law school 
     clinical programs for the purposes of funding the inclusion 
     of cases addressing issues of elder abuse, neglect, and 
     exploitation, including domestic violence, and sexual 
     assault, against older individuals.

     ``SEC. 40803. TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       ``The Attorney General shall develop curricula and offer, 
     or provide for the offering of, training programs to assist 
     law enforcement officers and prosecutors in recognizing, 
     addressing, investigating, and prosecuting instances of elder 
     abuse, neglect, and exploitation, including domestic 
     violence, and sexual assault, against older individuals.

     ``SEC. 40804. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary to carry out this subtitle.''.
       (b) Family Violence Prevention and Services Act 
     Amendments.--
       (1) Definitions.--Section 309 of the Family Violence 
     Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10408) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) The term `older individual' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 3002).''.
       (2) Domestic violence services for older individuals.--
     Section 311(a) of the Family Violence Prevention and Services 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 10410(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) work with domestic violence programs to encourage the 
     development of programs, including outreach, support groups, 
     and counseling, targeted to older individuals.''.
       (3) Demonstration grants for community initiatives.--
     Section 318(b)(2)(F) of the Family Violence Prevention and 
     Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10418(b)(2)(F)) is amended by 
     inserting ``and adult protective services entities'' before 
     the semicolon.
       (c) Older Americans Act of 1965 Amendments.--
       (1) Definitions.--Section 102 of the Older Americans Act of 
     1965 (42 U.S.C. 3002) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(45) The term `domestic violence' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 2003 of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2).
       ``(46) The term `sexual assault' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 2003 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2).''.
       (2) Research about the sexual assault of women who are 
     older individuals.--Section 202(d)(3)(C) of the Older 
     Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3012(d)(3)(C)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (i);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) in establishing research priorities under clause 
     (i), consider the importance of research about the sexual 
     assault of women who are older individuals.''.
       (3) State long-term care ombudsman program.--Section 
     303(a)(1) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 
     3023(a)(1)) is amended by inserting before the period the 
     following: ``, except that for grants to carry out section 
     321(a)(10), there are authorized to be appropriated such sums 
     as may be necessary without fiscal year limitation''.
       (4) Training for health professionals on screening for 
     elder abuse, neglect, and

[[Page 791]]

     exploitation.--Section 411 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 
     (42 U.S.C. 3031) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Training for Health Professionals on Screening for 
     Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, in consultation 
     with the Assistant Secretary, develop curricula and implement 
     continuing education training programs for protective service 
     workers, health care providers, social workers, clergy, and 
     other community-based social service providers in settings, 
     including senior centers, adult day care settings, and senior 
     housing, to improve the ability of the persons using the 
     curriculum and training programs to recognize and address 
     instances of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation, 
     including domestic violence, and sexual assault, against 
     older individuals.
       ``(2) Training and curricula.--In carrying out paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall develop and implement separate 
     curricula and training programs for adult protective services 
     workers, medical students, physicians, physician assistants, 
     nurse practitioners, nurses, and clergy.''.
       (5) Domestic violence shelters and programs for older 
     individuals.--Section 422(b) of the Older Americans Act of 
     1965 (42 U.S.C. 3035a(b)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (11);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) expand access to domestic violence shelters and 
     programs for older individuals and encourage the use of 
     senior housing, nursing homes, or other suitable facilities 
     or services when appropriate as emergency short-term shelters 
     or measures for older individuals who are the victims of 
     elder abuse, including domestic violence, and sexual assault, 
     against older individuals; and
       ``(14) promote research on legal, organizational, or 
     training impediments to providing services to older 
     individuals through shelters, such as impediments to 
     provision of the services in coordination with delivery of 
     health care or senior services.''.
       (6) Authorization of appropriations.--
       (A) Ombudsman program.--Section 702(a) of the Older 
     Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3058a(a)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(a) Ombudsman Program.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out chapter 2 such sums as may be 
     necessary without fiscal year limitation.''.
       (B) Elder abuse prevention program.--Section 702(b) of the 
     Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3058a(b)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Prevention of Elder Abuse, Neglect, and 
     Exploitation.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out chapter 3 such sums as may be necessary without 
     fiscal year limitation.''.
       (7) Community initiatives and outreach.--Title VII of the 
     Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3058 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating subtitle C as subtitle D;
       (B) by redesignating sections 761 through 764 as sections 
     771 through 774, respectively; and
       (C) by inserting after subtitle B the following:
            ``Subtitle C--Community Initiatives and Outreach

     ``SEC. 761. COMMUNITY INITIATIVES TO COMBAT ELDER ABUSE, 
                   NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION.

       ``The Secretary shall make grants to nonprofit private 
     organizations to support projects in local communities, 
     involving diverse sectors of each community, to coordinate 
     activities concerning intervention in and prevention of elder 
     abuse, neglect, and exploitation, including domestic 
     violence, and sexual assault, against older individuals.

     ``SEC. 762. OUTREACH TO OLDER INDIVIDUALS.

       ``The Secretary shall make grants to develop and implement 
     outreach programs directed toward assisting older individuals 
     who are victims of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation 
     (including domestic violence, and sexual assault, against 
     older individuals), including programs directed toward 
     assisting the individuals in senior housing complexes and 
     senior centers.

     ``SEC. 763. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     subtitle such sums as may be necessary without fiscal year 
     limitation.''.
       (d) Public Health Service Act Amendments.--
       (1) Title vii programs; preferences in financial awards.--
     Section 791 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     295j), as amended by section 107(a) of the Health Professions 
     Education Partnerships Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-392; 112 
     Stat. 3560) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Preferences Regarding Training in Identification and 
     Referral of Victims of Elder Abuse and Neglect.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a health professions 
     entity specified in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, in 
     making awards of grants or contracts under this title, give 
     preference to any such entity (if otherwise a qualified 
     applicant for the award involved) that has in effect the 
     requirement that, as a condition of receiving a degree or 
     certificate (as applicable) from the entity, each student 
     have had significant training (such as training conducted in 
     accordance with curricula or programs authorized under 
     section 411(f) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 
     3031(f))), in carrying out the following functions as a 
     provider of health care:
       ``(A) Identifying victims of elder abuse and neglect, 
     including domestic violence, and sexual assault, against 
     older individuals, and maintaining complete medical records 
     that include documentation of the examination, treatment 
     given, and referrals made, and recording the location and 
     nature of the victim's injuries.
       ``(B) Examining and treating such victims, within the scope 
     of the health professional's discipline, training, and 
     practice, including, at a minimum, providing medical advice 
     regarding the dynamics and nature of elder abuse and neglect.
       ``(C) Referring the victims to public and nonprofit private 
     entities that provide services for such victims.
       ``(2) Relevant health professions entities.--For purposes 
     of paragraph (1), a health professions entity specified in 
     this paragraph is any entity that is a school of medicine, a 
     school of osteopathic medicine, a graduate program in mental 
     health practice, a school of nursing (as defined in section 
     801), a program for the training of physician assistants, or 
     a program for the training of allied health professionals.
       ``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act II, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Commerce of 
     the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Labor and 
     Human Resources of the Senate, a report specifying--
       ``(A) the health professions entities that are receiving 
     preference under paragraph (1);
       ``(B) the number of hours of training required by the 
     entities for purposes of such paragraph;
       ``(C) the extent of clinical experience so required; and
       ``(D) the types of courses through which the training is 
     being provided.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) In general.--The terms `abuse', `neglect', `domestic 
     violence', and `older individual' have the meanings given the 
     terms in section 102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 3002).
       ``(B) Elder abuse and neglect.--The term `elder abuse and 
     neglect' means abuse and neglect of an older individual.
       ``(C) Sexual assault.--The term `sexual assault' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 2003 of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2).''.
       (2) Title viii programs; preferences in financial awards.--
     Section 806 of the Public Health Service Act (as added by 
     section 123 of the Health Professions Education Partnerships 
     Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-392)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(i) Preferences Regarding Training in Identification and 
     Referral of Victims of Elder Abuse and Neglect.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a health professions 
     entity specified in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, in 
     making awards of grants or contracts under this title, give 
     preference to any such entity (if otherwise a qualified 
     applicant for the award involved) that has in effect the 
     requirement that, as a condition of receiving a degree or 
     certificate (as applicable) from the entity, each student 
     have had significant training (such as training conducted in 
     accordance with curricula or programs authorized under 
     section 411(f) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 
     3031(f))), in carrying out the following functions as a 
     provider of health care:
       ``(A) Identifying victims of elder abuse and neglect, 
     including domestic violence, and sexual assault, against 
     older individuals, and maintaining complete medical records 
     that include documentation of the examination, treatment 
     given, and referrals made, and recording the location and 
     nature of the victim's injuries.
       ``(B) Examining and treating such victims, within the scope 
     of the health professional's discipline, training, and 
     practice, including, at a minimum, providing medical advice 
     regarding the dynamics and nature of elder abuse and neglect.
       ``(C) Referring the victims to public and nonprofit private 
     entities that provide services for such victims.
       ``(2) Relevant health professions entities.--For purposes 
     of paragraph (1), a health professions entity specified in 
     this paragraph is any entity that is a school of nursing or 
     other public or nonprofit private entity that is eligible to 
     receive an award described in such paragraph.
       ``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act II, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Commerce of 
     the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Labor and 
     Human Resources of the Senate, a report specifying--
       ``(A) the health professions entities that are receiving 
     preference under paragraph (1);
       ``(B) the number of hours of training required by the 
     entities for purposes of such paragraph;
       ``(C) the extent of clinical experience so required; and
       ``(D) the types of courses through which the training is 
     being provided.

[[Page 792]]

       ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) In general.--The terms `abuse', `neglect', `domestic 
     violence', and `older individual' have the meanings given the 
     terms in section 102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 3002).
       ``(B) Elder abuse and neglect.--The term `elder abuse and 
     neglect' means abuse and neglect of an older individual.
       ``(C) Sexual assault.--The term `sexual assault' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 2003 of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2).''.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 411(f) of the Older 
     Americans Act of 1965 (as added by subsection (c)(4)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     provide information about the curricula and training programs 
     to entities described in section 791(d)(2) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295j(d)(2)) and section 
     806(i)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (as added by 
     section 123 of the Health Professions Education Partnerships 
     Act of 1998 and amended by section 209(d)(2) of the Violence 
     Against Women Act II) that seek grants or contracts under 
     title VII or VIII of such Act.''.
        TITLE III--LIMITING THE EFFECTS OF VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN

     SEC. 301. SAFE HAVENS FOR CHILDREN.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General may make grants to 
     States and Indian tribal governments to enable States and 
     Indian tribal governments to enter into contracts and 
     cooperative agreements with public or private nonprofit 
     entities to assist those entities in establishing and 
     operating supervised visitation centers for purposes of 
     facilitating supervised visitation and visitation exchange of 
     children by and between parents.
       (b) Considerations.--In awarding grants under subsection 
     (a), the Attorney General shall take into account--
       (1) the number of families to be served by the proposed 
     visitation center;
       (2) the extent to which the proposed supervised visitation 
     center serves underserved populations (as defined in section 
     2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
     Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2));
       (3) with respect to an applicant for a contract or 
     cooperative agreement, the extent to which the applicant 
     demonstrates cooperation and collaboration with nonprofit, 
     nongovernmental entities in the local community served, 
     including the State domestic violence coalition, State sexual 
     assault coalition, local shelters, and programs for domestic 
     violence and sexual assault victims;
       (4) the extent to which the applicant demonstrates 
     coordination and collaboration with State and local court 
     systems, including mechanisms for communication and referral; 
     and
       (5) the extent to which the applicant demonstrates 
     implementation of domestic violence and sexual assault 
     training for all employees.
       (c) Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Amounts provided under a grant, contract, 
     or cooperative agreement awarded under this section shall be 
     used to establish and operate supervised visitation centers.
       (2) Applicant requirements.--The Attorney General shall 
     award grants for contracts and cooperative agreements under 
     this section in accordance with such regulations as the 
     Attorney General may promulgate. The regulations shall 
     establish a multi-year grant process. The Attorney General 
     shall give priority in awarding grants for contracts and 
     cooperative agreements under this section to States that 
     consider domestic violence in making a custody decision and 
     require findings on the record. An applicant awarded a 
     contract or cooperative agreement by a State that receives a 
     grant under this section shall--
       (A) demonstrate recognized expertise in the area of family 
     violence and a record of high quality service to victims of 
     domestic violence and/or sexual assault;
       (B) demonstrate collaboration with and support of the State 
     domestic violence coalition, sexual assault coalition or 
     local domestic violence and sexual assault shelter or program 
     in the locality in which the supervised visitation center 
     will be operated;
       (C) provide supervised visitation and visitation exchange 
     services over the duration of a court order to promote 
     continuity and stability;
       (D) ensure that any fees charged to individuals for use of 
     services are based on an individual's income;
       (E) demonstrate that adequate security measures, including 
     adequate facilities, procedures, and personnel capable of 
     preventing violence, are in place for the operation of 
     supervised visitation; and
       (F) described standards by which the supervised visitation 
     center will operate.
       (d) Reporting.--Not later than 120 days after the end of 
     each fiscal year, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     Congress a report that includes information concerning--
       (1) the number of individuals served and the number of 
     individuals turned away from services (categorized by State), 
     the number of individuals from underserved populations served 
     and turned away from services, and the type of problems that 
     underlie the need for supervised visitation or visitation 
     exchange, such as domestic violence, child abuse, sexual 
     assault, emotional or other physical abuse, or a combination 
     of such factors;
       (2) the numbers of supervised visitations or visitation 
     exchanges ordered during custody determinations under a 
     separation or divorce decree or protection order, through 
     child protection services or other social services agencies, 
     or by any other order of a civil, criminal, juvenile, or 
     family court;
       (3) the process by which children or abused partners are 
     protected during visitations, temporary custody transfers, 
     and other activities for which the supervised visitation 
     centers are established under this section;
       (4) safety and security problems occurring during the 
     reporting period during supervised visitations or at 
     visitation centers including the number of parental abduction 
     cases;
       (5) the number of parental abduction cases in a judicial 
     district using supervised visitation services, both as 
     identified in criminal prosecution and custody violations; 
     and
       (6) program standards across the country that are in place 
     for operating a supervised visitation center.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under 
     section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out this 
     section--
       (A) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       (B) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       (C) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
       (2) Distribution.--Of amounts made available to carry out 
     this section for each fiscal year, not less than 95 percent 
     shall be used to award grants, contracts, or cooperative 
     agreements.
       (3) Allotment for indian tribes.--
       (A) In general.--Not less than 5 percent of the total 
     amount made available to carry out this section for each 
     fiscal year shall be available for grants to Indian tribal 
     governments.
       (B) Reallotment of funds.--If, beginning 9 months after the 
     first day of any fiscal year for which amounts are made 
     available under this paragraph, any amount made available 
     under this paragraph remains unobligated, the unobligated 
     amount may be allocated without regard to subparagraph (A).

     SEC. 302. STUDY OF CHILD CUSTODY LAWS IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 
                   CASES.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall--
       (1) conduct a study of Federal and State laws relating to 
     child custody, including the Parental Kidnaping Prevention 
     Act of 1980, and the amendments made by that Act, and the 
     effect of those laws on child custody cases in which domestic 
     violence is a factor; and
       (2) submit to Congress a report describing the results of 
     that study, including the effects of implementing or applying 
     new model State laws, and the recommendations of the Attorney 
     General regarding legislative changes to reduce the incidence 
     or pattern of violence against women or of sexual assault of 
     the child.
       (b) Sufficiency of Defenses.--In carrying out subsection 
     (a) with respect to the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 
     1980, and the amendments made by that Act, the Attorney 
     General shall examine the sufficiency of defenses to parental 
     abduction charges available in cases involving domestic 
     violence, and the burdens and risks encountered by victims of 
     domestic violence arising from compliance with the full faith 
     and credit (and judicial jurisdiction) requirements of that 
     Act and the amendments made by that Act.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriate to carry out this section $200,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
       (d) Condition for Custody Determination.--Section 
     1738A(c)(2)(C)(ii) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``he'' and inserting ``the child, or a 
     sibling or parent of the child,''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, including any act of domestic violence 
     by the other parent'' before the semicolon.

     SEC. 303. REAUTHORIZATION OF RUNAWAY AND HOMELESS YOUTH 
                   GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 316(c) of the Runaway and Homeless 
     Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5712d(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust 
     Fund established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to 
     carry out this section--
       ``(1) $21,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(2) $22,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(3) $23,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.
       (b) Dissemination of Information.--Section 316 of part A of 
     the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5712d) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Dissemination of Information.--The Secretary shall 
     annually compile and broadly disseminate (including through 
     electronic

[[Page 793]]

     publication) information about the use of amounts expended 
     and the projects funded under this subtitle, including any 
     evaluations of the projects and information to enable 
     replication and adoption of the strategies identified in the 
     projects. Such dissemination shall target community-based 
     programs, including domestic violence and sexual assault 
     programs.''.

     SEC. 304. REAUTHORIZATION OF VICTIMS OF CHILD ABUSE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Court-Appointed Special Advocate Program.--Section 
     218(a) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     13014(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund 
     established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry 
     out this subtitle--
       ``(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
       ``(2) $12,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and 
     2002.''.
       (b) Child Abuse Training Programs for Judicial Personnel 
     and Practitioners.--Section 224(a) of the Victims of Child 
     Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13024(a) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund 
     established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry 
     out this subtitle $2,300,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2002.''.
       (c) Grants for Televised Testimony.--Section 1001(a)(7) of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(7)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(7) There is authorized to be appropriated from the 
     Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under section 
     310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
     of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out part N $1,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2000 through 2002.''.
       (d) Dissemination of Information.--The Attorney General 
     shall annually compile and broadly disseminate (including 
     through electronic publication) information about the use of 
     amounts expended and the projects funded under section 218(a) 
     of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     13014(a)), section 224(a) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act 
     of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13024(a)), and section 1007(a)(7) of title 
     I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(7)), including any evaluations of the 
     projects and information to enable replication and adoption 
     of the strategies identified in the projects. Such 
     dissemination shall target community-based programs, 
     including domestic violence and sexual assault programs.
   TITLE IV--STRENGTHENING EDUCATION AND TRAINING TO COMBAT VIOLENCE 
                             AGAINST WOMEN

     SEC. 401. EDUCATION AND TRAINING OF HEALTH PROFESSIONALS.

       (a) Title VII Programs; Preferences in Financial Awards.--
     Section 791 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     295j), as amended by section 209 of this Act, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Preferences Regarding Training in Identification and 
     Referral of Victims of Domestic Violence.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a health professions 
     entity specified in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, in 
     making awards of grants or contracts under this title, give 
     preference to any such entity (if otherwise a qualified 
     applicant for the award involved) that has in effect the 
     requirement that, as a condition of receiving a degree or 
     certificate (as applicable) from the entity, each student 
     have had significant training in carrying out the following 
     functions as a provider of health care:
       ``(A) Identifying victims of domestic violence, and 
     maintaining complete medical records that include 
     documentation of the examination, treatment given, and 
     referrals made, and recording the location and nature of the 
     victim's injuries.
       ``(B) Examining and treating such victims, within the scope 
     of the health professional's discipline, training, and 
     practice, including, at a minimum, providing medical advice 
     regarding the dynamics and nature of domestic violence.
       ``(C) Referring the victims to public and nonprofit private 
     entities that provide services for such victims.
       ``(2) Relevant health professions entities.--For purposes 
     of paragraph (1), a health professions entity specified in 
     this paragraph is any entity that is a school of medicine, a 
     school of osteopathic medicine, a graduate program in mental 
     health practice, a school of nursing (as defined in section 
     853), a program for the training of physician assistants, or 
     a program for the training of allied health professionals.
       ``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     submit to the Committee on Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Labor and Human 
     Resources of the Senate, a report specifying--
       ``(A) the health professions entities that are receiving 
     preference under paragraph (1);
       ``(B) the number of hours of training required by the 
     entities for purposes of such paragraph;
       ``(C) the extent of clinical experience so required; and
       ``(D) the types of courses through which the training is 
     being provided.
       ``(4) Definition of domestic violence.--In this subsection, 
     the term `domestic violence' includes behavior commonly 
     referred to as domestic violence, sexual assault, spousal 
     abuse, woman battering, partner abuse, child abuse, elder 
     abuse, and acquaintance rape.''.
       (b) Title VIII Programs; Preferences in Financial Awards.--
     Section 860 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 298b-
     7), as amended by section 209 of this Act, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Preferences Regarding Training in Identification and 
     Referral of Victims of Domestic Violence.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a health professions 
     entity specified in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, in 
     making awards of grants or contracts under this title, give 
     preference to any such entity (if otherwise a qualified 
     applicant for the award involved) that has in effect the 
     requirement that, as a condition of receiving a degree or 
     certificate (as applicable) from the entity, each student 
     have had significant training in carrying out the following 
     functions as a provider of health care:
       ``(A) Identifying victims of domestic violence, and 
     maintaining complete medical records that include 
     documentation of the examination, treatment given, and 
     referrals made, and recording the location and nature of the 
     victim's injuries.
       ``(B) Examining and treating such victims, within the scope 
     of the health professional's discipline, training, and 
     practice, including, at a minimum, providing medical advice 
     regarding the dynamics and nature of domestic violence.
       ``(C) Referring the victims to public and nonprofit private 
     entities that provide services for such victims.
       ``(2) Relevant health professions entities.--For purposes 
     of paragraph (1), a health professions entity specified in 
     this paragraph is any entity that is a school of nursing or 
     other public or nonprofit private entity that is eligible to 
     receive an award described in such paragraph.
       ``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of the Domestic Violence Identification 
     and Referral Act of 1997, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, and 
     the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate, a 
     report specifying--
       ``(A) the health professions entities that are receiving 
     preference under paragraph (1);
       ``(B) the number of hours of training required by the 
     entities for purposes of such paragraph;
       ``(C) the extent of clinical experience so required; and
       ``(D) the types of courses through which the training is 
     being provided.
       ``(4) Definition of domestic violence.--In this subsection, 
     the term `domestic violence' includes behavior commonly 
     referred to as domestic violence, sexual assault, spousal 
     abuse, woman battering, partner abuse, child abuse, elder 
     abuse, and acquaintance rape.''.

     SEC. 402. EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN APPROPRIATE RESPONSES TO 
                   VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.

       (a) Authority.--The Attorney General may make grants in 
     accordance with this section to public and private nonprofit 
     entities that, in the determination of the Attorney General, 
     have--
       (1) nationally recognized expertise in the areas of 
     domestic violence and sexual assault; and
       (2) a record of commitment and quality responses to reduce 
     domestic violence and sexual assault.
       (b) Purpose.--Grants under this section may be used for the 
     purposes of developing, testing, presenting, and 
     disseminating model programs to provide education and 
     training in appropriate and effective responses to victims of 
     domestic violence and victims of sexual assault (including, 
     as appropriate, the effects of domestic violence on children) 
     to individuals (other than law enforcement officers and 
     prosecutors) who are likely to come into contact with such 
     victims during the course of their employment, including--
       (1) campus personnel, such as administrators, housing 
     officers, resident advisers, counselors, and others;
       (2) caseworkers, supervisors, administrators, 
     administrative law judges, and other individuals 
     administering Federal and State benefits programs, such as 
     child welfare and child protective services, Temporary 
     Assistance to Needy Families, social security disability, 
     child support, medicaid, unemployment, workers' compensation, 
     and similar programs;
       (3) justice system professionals, such as court personnel, 
     guardians ad litem and other individuals appointed to 
     represent or evaluate children, probation and parole 
     officers, bail commissioners, judges, and attorneys;
       (4) medical and health care professionals, including mental 
     and behavioral health professionals such as psychologists, 
     psychiatrists, social workers, therapists, counselors, and 
     others; and

[[Page 794]]

       (5) religious professionals, such as clergy persons and lay 
     employees.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust 
     Fund established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to 
     carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2000 through 2002.

     SEC. 403. RAPE PREVENTION AND EDUCATION.

       (a) In General.--Part J of title III of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280b et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after section 393A the following:

     ``SEC. 393B. USE OF ALLOTMENTS FOR RAPE PREVENTION EDUCATION.

       ``(a) Permitted Use.--Notwithstanding section 1904(a)(1), 
     amounts transferred by the State for use under this part 
     shall be used for rape prevention and education programs 
     conducted by rape crisis centers, State sexual assault 
     coalitions, and other public and private nonprofit entities 
     for--
       ``(1) educational seminars;
       ``(2) the operation of hotlines;
       ``(3) training programs for professionals;
       ``(4) the preparation of informational material;
       ``(5) education and training programs for students and 
     campus personnel designed to reduce the incidence of sexual 
     assault at colleges and universities; and
       ``(6) other efforts to increase awareness of the facts 
     about, or to help prevent, sexual assault, including efforts 
     to increase awareness in underserved communities and 
     awareness among individuals with disabilities (as defined in 
     section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12102)).
       ``(b) National Resource Center.--The Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall, through the National Center for 
     Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, establish a National Resource Center 
     on Sexual Assault to provide resource information, policy, 
     training, and technical assistance to Federal, State, and 
     Indian tribal agencies, as well as to State sexual assault 
     coalitions and local sexual assault programs and to other 
     professionals and interested parties on issues relating to 
     sexual assault. The Resource Center shall maintain a central 
     resource library in order to collect, prepare, analyze, and 
     disseminate information and statistics and analyses thereof 
     relating to the incidence and prevention of sexual assault.
       ``(c) Targeting of Education Programs.--States providing 
     grant moneys must ensure that not less than 25 percent of the 
     funds are used for educational programs targeted for middle 
     school, junior high, and high school students. The programs 
     targeted under this subsection shall be provided by or in 
     consultation with rape crisis centers, State sexual assault 
     coalitions, or other entities recognized for their expertise 
     in preventing sexual assault or in providing services to 
     victims of sexual assault.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under 
     section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out this 
     section--
       ``(A) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(B) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(C) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
       ``(2) Sexual assault coalitions.--Not less than 10 percent 
     of the total amount made available under this subsection in 
     each fiscal year shall be used to make grants to State sexual 
     assault coalitions to address public health issues associated 
     with sexual assault through training, resource development, 
     or similar research.
       ``(3) National resource center allotment.--Not less than 1 
     percent of the total amount made available under this 
     subsection in each fiscal year shall be available for 
     allotment under subsection (b).
       ``(e) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Supplement not supplant.--Amounts transferred by 
     States for use under this section shall be used to supplement 
     and not supplant other Federal, State, and local public funds 
     expended to provide services of the type described in 
     subsection (a).
       ``(2) Studies.--A State may not use more than 2 percent of 
     the amount received by the State under this section for each 
     fiscal year for surveillance studies or prevalence studies.
       ``(3) Administration.--A State may not use more than 5 
     percent of the amount received by the State under this 
     section for each fiscal year for administrative expenses.
       ``(f) Eligible Organizations.--The Secretary shall award a 
     grant under subsection (b) of this section to a private 
     nonprofit entity which can--
       ``(1) demonstrate that it has recognized expertise in the 
     area of sexual assault, a record of high-quality services to 
     victims of sexual assault, including a demonstration of 
     support from advocacy groups, such as State sexual assault 
     coalitions or recognized national sexual assault groups; and
       ``(2) demonstrate a commitment to the provision of services 
     to underserved populations.
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `rape prevention and education' includes 
     education and prevention efforts directed at sexual offenses 
     committed by offenders who are not known to the victim as 
     well as offenders who are known to the victim;
       ``(2) the term `rape crisis center' means a private 
     nonprofit organization that is organized, or has as one of 
     its primary purposes, to provide services for victims of 
     sexual assault and has a record of commitment and 
     demonstrated experience in providing services to victims of 
     sexual assault;
       ``(3) the term `sexual assault' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2); and
       ``(4) the term `State sexual assault coalition' means a 
     statewide nonprofit, non-governmental membership organization 
     administering a majority of sexual assault programs within 
     the State that, among other activities, provides training and 
     technical assistance to sexual assault programs within the 
     State.
       ``(h) Terms.--
       ``(1) Basis of allotments.--The Secretary shall make 
     allotments to each State on the basis of the population of 
     the State.
       ``(2) Limitation.--No State may use amounts made available 
     by reason of subsection (a) in any fiscal year for 
     administration of any prevention program other than the rape 
     prevention and education program for which allotments are 
     made under this section.
       ``(3) Availability of funds.--Any amount paid to a State 
     for a fiscal year and remaining unobligated at the end of 
     such year shall remain available for the next fiscal year to 
     such State for the purposes for which it was made.''.
       (b) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Public health service.--Section 1910A of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300w-10) is repealed.
       (2) Violence against women act of 1994.--Section 40151 of 
     the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (108 Stat. 1920) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 404. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN PREVENTION EDUCATION AMONG 
                   YOUTH.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, 
     shall provide grants to individuals or organizations to carry 
     out educational programs for elementary schools, middle 
     schools, secondary schools, or institutions of higher 
     education with respect to information regarding, and 
     prevention of, domestic violence and violence among intimate 
     partners.
       (b) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under this 
     section, an individual or organization shall work in domestic 
     violence prevention, health or social work, law or law 
     enforcement, schools, or institutions of higher education.
       (c) Applications.--An individual or organization that 
     desires to receive a grant under this section shall submit to 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services an application, in 
     such form and manner as the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall prescribe, that--
       (1) demonstrates that the educational program is 
     comprehensive, engaging, and appropriate to the target ages, 
     addresses cultural diversity, has the potential to change 
     attitudes and behaviors, is developed based on research and 
     experience in the areas of youth education and domestic 
     violence, collects some form of data on changes in 
     participants' attitudes or behavior, and includes an 
     evaluation component;
       (2) in the case of a program for a collegiate audience, 
     demonstrates input from members of the campus community, 
     campus or local law enforcement, education professionals, 
     legal and psychological experts on battering, and victim 
     advocate organizations; and
       (3) contains such other information, agreements, and 
     assurances as the Secretary of Health and Human Services may 
     require.
       (d) Uses of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--An individual or organization that 
     receives a grant under this section may use the grant funds--
       (A) to carry out educational programs for elementary 
     schools, middle schools, secondary schools, or institutions 
     of higher education with respect to information regarding, 
     and prevention of, domestic violence and violence among 
     intimate partners;
       (B) to modify the program materials of the model programs 
     implemented under section 317 of the Family Violence 
     Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10417), if 
     appropriate, in order to make the materials applicable to a 
     particular age group;
       (C) to purchase the materials described in subparagraph 
     (B); or
       (D) to establish pilot educational programs described in 
     paragraph (1) for institutions of higher education for the 
     purpose of identifying model programs for such institutions.
       (2) Limitation.--An individual or organization that 
     receives a grant under this section for a fiscal year shall 
     use not more than 7 percent of the grant funds for 
     administrative expenses.
       (e) Publication.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall publish the availability of grants under this 
     section through announcements in professional publications 
     for the individuals or organizations described in subsection 
     (d)(2), and through notice in the Federal Register.

[[Page 795]]

       (f) Term.--A grant under this section may be awarded for a 
     period of not more than 3 fiscal years.
       (g) Equitable Distribution.--In awarding grants under this 
     section, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     ensure an equitable geographic distribution to individuals 
     and organizations throughout the United States.
       (h) Requirements.--In carrying out an educational program 
     under this section, an individual or organization shall--
       (1) develop the program, or acquire model program materials 
     if available;
       (2) carry out the program with a school's or institution of 
     higher education's involvement; and
       (3) report the results of the program to the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services in a format provided by the 
     Secretary.
       (i) Evaluation and Report.--
       (1) College level programs.--Not later than December 31, 
     2000, the Secretary shall evaluate the pilot educational 
     programs for college audiences assisted under subsection 
     (e)(1)(D) with the goal of identifying and describing model 
     programs.
       (2) Evaluation and report.--Not later than 3 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall--
       (A) transmit to Congress the design and an evaluation of 
     the model collegiate programs;
       (B) report to Congress regarding results of the elementary 
     school, middle school, secondary school, and institution of 
     higher education programs funded under this section; and
       (C) suggest changes or improvements to be made in the 
     programs.
       (j) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall publish in the Federal Register proposed 
     regulations implementing this section. Not later than 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services shall publish in the Federal 
     Register final regulations implementing this section.
       (k) Definitions.--
       (1) Elementary school; secondary school.--The terms 
     ``elementary school'' and ``secondary school'' have the 
     meanings given the terms in section 14101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       (2) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 1201 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1141).
       (l) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section (other than subsection (d)(1)(D) and 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (i)(2))--
       (A) $2,700,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
       (B) $2,700,000 for fiscal year 2001.
       (2) Collegiate programs; report.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund 
     established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry 
     out subsection (d)(1)(D) and subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     subsection (i)(2) $400,000 for fiscal year 2001.
       (3) Availability.--Amounts appropriated under this 
     subsection shall remain available until the earlier of--
       (A) the date on which those amounts are expended; or
       (B) December 31, 2001.

     SEC. 405. EDUCATION AND TRAINING TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST AND 
                   ABUSE OF WOMEN WITH DISABILITIES.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make grants to 
     States and nongovernmental private entities to provide 
     education and technical assistance for the purpose of 
     providing training, consultation, and information on 
     violence, abuse, and sexual assault against women who are 
     individuals with disabilities (as defined in section 3 of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102)).
       (b) Priorities.--In making grants under this section, the 
     Attorney General shall give priority to applications designed 
     to provide education and technical assistance on--
       (1) the nature, definition, and characteristics of 
     violence, abuse, and sexual assault experienced by women who 
     are individuals with disabilities;
       (2) outreach activities to ensure that women who are 
     individuals with disabilities who are victims of violence, 
     abuse, and sexual assault receive appropriate assistance;
       (3) the requirements of shelters and victim services 
     organizations under Federal anti-discrimination laws, 
     including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and 
     section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and
       (4) cost-effective ways that shelters and victim services 
     may accommodate the needs of individuals with disabilities in 
     accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
       (c) Uses of Grants.--Each recipient of a grant under this 
     section shall provide information and training to 
     organizations and programs that provide services to 
     individuals with disabilities, including independent living 
     centers, disability-related service organizations, and 
     domestic violence programs providing shelter or related 
     assistance.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust 
     Fund established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to 
     carry out this section--
       (1) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       (2) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       (3) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.

     SEC. 406. COMMUNITY INITIATIVES.

       Section 318 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 10418) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (H) as subparagraph (I); 
     and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following:
       ``(H) groups that provide services to or advocacy on behalf 
     of individuals with disabilities (as defined in section 3 of 
     the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12102)); and''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (h) and inserting the following:
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated from the Violent Crime 
     Reduction Trust Fund established under section 310001 of the 
     Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 
     U.S.C. 14211) to carry out this section--
       ``(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(2) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(3) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.

     SEC. 407. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON STANDARDS OF PRACTICE AND 
                   TRAINING FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish a 
     multidisciplinary, multiagency national commission, which 
     shall--
       (1) evaluate standards of training and practice for 
     licensed health care professionals performing sexual assault 
     forensic examinations and develop a national recommended 
     standard for training;
       (2) recommend minimum sexual assault forensic examination 
     training for all health care students to improve the 
     recognition of injuries suggestive of rape and sexual assault 
     and baseline knowledge of appropriate referrals in victim 
     treatment and evidence collection;
       (3) review national, State, and local protocols on sexual 
     assault for forensic examinations, and based on the review, 
     develop a recommended national protocol, and establish a 
     mechanism for nationwide dissemination; and
       (4) study and evaluate State procedures for payment of 
     forensic examinations for victims of sexual assault and 
     establish a recommended Federal protocol for the payment of 
     forensic examinations.
       (b) Membership.--The members of the national commission 
     established under this section shall be appointed by the 
     Attorney General from among individuals who are experts in 
     the prevention and treatment of rape and sexual assault, 
     including--
       (1) individuals employed in the fields of victim services, 
     criminal justice, forensic nursing, forensic science, 
     emergency room medicine, law, and social services; and
       (2) individuals who are experts in the prevention and 
     treatment of sex crimes in ethnic, social, and language 
     minority communities, as well as rural, disabled, and other 
     underserved communities.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a 
     report to Congress on the findings of the commission 
     established under subsection (a).
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust 
     Fund established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to 
     carry out this section $200,000 for fiscal year 2000.

     SEC. 408. NATIONAL WORKPLACE CLEARINGHOUSE ON VIOLENCE 
                   AGAINST WOMEN.

       (a) Authority.--The Attorney General may make a grant in 
     accordance with this section to a private, nonprofit entity 
     that meets the requirements of subsection (b) to establish 
     and operate a national clearinghouse and resource center to 
     provide information and assistance to employers and labor 
     organizations on appropriate workplace responses to domestic 
     violence and sexual assault.
       (b) Grantees.--Each applicant for a grant under this 
     section shall submit to the Attorney General an application, 
     which shall--
       (1) demonstrate that the applicant--
       (A) has a nationally recognized expertise in the area of 
     domestic violence and sexual assault and a record of 
     commitment and quality responses to reduce domestic violence 
     and sexual assault; and
       (B) will provide matching funds from non-Federal sources in 
     an amount equal to not less than 10 percent of the total 
     amount of the grant under this section; and
       (2) include a plan to conduct outreach to encourage 
     employers (including small and

[[Page 796]]

     large businesses, as well as public entities such as 
     universities, and State and local governments) to develop and 
     implement appropriate responses to assist employees who are 
     victims of domestic violence or sexual assault.
       (c) Use of Grant Amount.--A grant under this section may be 
     used for salaries, travel expenses, equipment, printing, and 
     other reasonable expenses necessary to assemble, maintain, 
     and disseminate to employers and labor organizations 
     information on appropriate responses to domestic violence and 
     sexual assault, including costs associated with such 
     activities as--
       (1) developing and disseminating model protocols and 
     workplace policies;
       (2) developing and disseminating models for employer and 
     union sponsored victims' services;
       (3) developing and disseminating training videos and model 
     curricula to promote better understandings of workplace 
     issues surrounding domestic violence; and
       (4) planning and conducting conferences and other 
     educational opportunities.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust 
     Fund established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to 
     carry out this section $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2000 through 2002.

     SEC. 409. STRENGTHENING RESEARCH TO COMBAT VIOLENCE AGAINST 
                   WOMEN.

       Chapter 9 of subtitle B of the Violence Against Women Act 
     of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13961 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``SEC. 40294. RESEARCH TO COMBAT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.

       ``(a) Education, Prevention, and Intervention Research 
     Grants.--
       ``(1) Purposes.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     and the Attorney General shall make grants to entities, 
     including domestic violence and sexual assault organizations, 
     research organizations, and academic institutions, to support 
     research and evaluation of education, prevention, and 
     intervention programs on violent behavior against women.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--The research conducted under this 
     section shall include--
       ``(A) longitudinal research to study the developmental 
     trajectory of violent behavior against women and the manner 
     in which that violence differs from other violent behaviors;
       ``(B) the examination of risk factors for sexual and 
     intimate partner violence for victims and perpetrators, such 
     as poverty, childhood victimization and other traumas;
       ``(C) the examination of short- and long-term efforts of 
     programs designed to prevent sexual and intimate partner 
     violence;
       ``(D) outcome evaluations of interventions and school 
     curriculum targeted at children and teenagers;
       ``(E) the examination and documentation of the processes 
     and informal strategies women experience in attempting to 
     manage and stop the violence in their lives; and
       ``(F) the development, testing, and evaluation of the 
     economic and health benefits of effective methods of domestic 
     violence screening and prevention programs at all points of 
     entry into the health care system, including mental health, 
     emergency medicine, obstetrics, gynecology, and primary care, 
     and an assessment of the costs of domestic violence to the 
     health care system.
       ``(b) Addressing Gaps in Research.--
       ``(1) Purposes.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     and the Attorney General shall make grants to domestic 
     violence and sexual assault organizations, research 
     organizations, and academic institutions in order to address 
     gaps in research and knowledge about violence against women, 
     including violence against women in underserved communities.
       ``(2) Uses of funds.--The research conducted with grants 
     made under this subsection shall include--
       ``(A) the development of national- and community-level 
     survey studies to measure the incidence and prevalence of 
     violence against women in underserved populations and the 
     terms women use to describe their experiences of violence;
       ``(B) qualitative and quantitative research to understand 
     the manner in which factors that shape the context and 
     experience of violence in women's lives, as well as the 
     education, prevention, and intervention strategies available 
     to women (including minors);
       ``(C) a study of violence against women as a risk factor 
     for diseases from a multivariate perspective;
       ``(D) an examination of the prevalence and dynamics of 
     emotional and psychological abuse, the effects on women of 
     such abuse, and the education, prevention, and intervention 
     strategies that are available to address this type of abuse;
       ``(E) an examination of the need for and availability of 
     legal assistance and services for victims of sexual assault; 
     and
       ``(F) the use of nonjudicial alternative dispute resolution 
     (such as mediation, negotiation, conciliation, and 
     restorative justice models) in cases in which domestic 
     violence is a factor, comparing nonjudicial alternative 
     dispute resolution and traditional judicial methods based 
     upon the quality of representation of the victim, the 
     training of mediators or other facilitators, the satisfaction 
     of the parties, the outcome of the proceedings, and such 
     other factors as may be identified; and
       ``(G) an examination of effective models to address 
     domestic violence in child protective services and child 
     welfare agencies, including--
       ``(i) documenting the scope of the problem;
       ``(ii) identifying the risk of harm perpetrators of 
     domestic violence pose to children and to parents who are 
     victims of domestic violence; and
       ``(iii) examining effective models to address domestic 
     violence in the context of child welfare and child protection 
     that protect children while protecting parents who are 
     victims of domestic violence.
       ``(c) Sentencing Commission Study.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this section, the United 
     States Sentencing Commission shall submit to Congress a 
     report on--
       ``(1) sentences given to offenders incarcerated in Federal 
     and State prisons for homicides or assaults in which the 
     victim was a spouse, former spouse, or intimate partner of 
     the offender;
       ``(2) the effect of illicit drugs and alcohol on domestic 
     violence and the sentences imposed for offenses involving 
     illicit drugs and alcohol in which domestic violence 
     occurred;
       ``(3) the extent to which acts of domestic violence 
     committed against the offender, including coercion, may have 
     contributed to the commission of an offense;
       ``(4) an analysis delineated by race, gender, type of 
     offense, and any other categories that would be useful for 
     understanding the problem of domestic violence; and
       ``(5) recommendations with respect to the offenses 
     described in this subsection, including any basis for a 
     downward adjustment in any applicable Federal sentencing 
     guidelines determination.
       ``(d) Research on Pregnancy and Sexual Assault.--
       ``(1) Purposes.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     and the Attorney General shall make grants to nonprofit 
     entities, including sexual assault organizations, research 
     organizations, and academic institutions, in order to gather 
     qualitative and quantitative data on the experiences of 
     minors and adults who become pregnant as a result of sexual 
     assault within State health care, judicial, and social 
     services systems.
       ``(2) Use of amounts.--The research conducted with grants 
     made under this subsection shall include--
       ``(A) the incidence and prevalence of pregnancy resulting 
     from sexual assault, including the ages of the victim and 
     perpetrator, and any relationship between the perpetrator and 
     the victim (such as family, acquaintance, intimate partner, 
     spouse, household member, etc.);
       ``(B) the degree to which State adoption, child custody, 
     visitation, child support, parental termination, and child 
     welfare criminal justice laws and policies serve the needs of 
     women (including minors) who become pregnant as a result of 
     sexual assault;
       ``(C) the impact of State social services rules, policies, 
     and procedures on women (including minors) who become 
     pregnant as a result of sexual assault and on those children 
     born as a result of the sexual assault;
       ``(D) the availability of public and private legal, 
     medical, and mental health counseling, financial, and other 
     forms of assistance to women (including minors) who become 
     pregnant as a result of sexual assault, and to the children 
     born as a result of the sexual assault, including the extent 
     to which barriers exist in accessing that assistance; and
       ``(E) recommendations for improvements in State health 
     care, judicial, and social services systems to address the 
     needs of women (including minors) who become pregnant as a 
     result of sexual assault and of the children born as a result 
     of the sexual assault.
       ``(e) Status Report on Laws Regarding Rape and Sexual 
     Assault Offenses.--
       ``(1) Study.--The Attorney General, in consultation with 
     national, State, and local domestic violence and sexual 
     assault coalitions and programs, including, nationally 
     recognized experts on sexual assault, such as from the 
     judiciary, the legal profession, psychological associations, 
     and sex offender treatment providers, shall conduct a 
     national study to examine the status of the law with respect 
     to rape and sexual assault offenses and the effectiveness of 
     the implementation of laws in addressing such crimes and 
     protecting their victims. In carrying out this subsection, 
     the Attorney General may utilize the Bureau of Justice 
     Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office 
     for Victims of Crime, or any other appropriate component of 
     the Department of Justice.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Attorney General shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the findings of the study under 
     paragraph (1), which shall include--
       ``(A) an analysis of the degree of uniformity among the 
     States with respect to rape and sexual assault laws 
     (including sex offenses committed against children), 
     including the degree of uniformity among States with respect 
     to--

[[Page 797]]

       ``(i) definitions of rape and sexual assault, including any 
     marital rape exception and any other exception or downgrading 
     of offense;
       ``(ii) the element of consent and coercive conduct, 
     including deceit;
       ``(iii) the element of physical resistance and affirmative 
     nonconsent as a precondition for conviction;
       ``(iv) the element of force, including penetration 
     requirement as aggravating factor and use of coercion;
       ``(v) evidentiary matters--

       ``(I) inferences--timeliness of complaint under the Model 
     Penal Code;
       ``(II) post traumatic stress disorder (including rape 
     trauma syndrome) relevancy of scope and admissibility;
       ``(III) rape shield laws--in camera evidentiary 
     determinations;
       ``(IV) prior bad acts; and
       ``(V) corroboration requirement and cautionary jury 
     instructions;

       ``(vi) the existence of special rules for rape and sexual 
     assault offenses;
       ``(vii) the use of experts;
       ``(viii) sentencing--

       ``(I) plea bargains;
       ``(II) presentence reports;
       ``(III) recidivism and remorse;
       ``(IV) adolescents;
       ``(V) psychological injuries;
       ``(VI) gravity of crime and trauma to victim; and
       ``(VII) race; and

       ``(ix) any personal or professional relationship between 
     the perpetrator and the victim; and
       ``(B) any recommendations of the Attorney General for 
     reforms to foster uniformity among the States in addressing 
     rape and sexual assault offenses in order to protect victims 
     more effectively while safeguarding the due process rights of 
     the accused.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust 
     Fund established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211)--
       ``(1) to carry out subsection (a), $3,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 and 2001;
       ``(2) to carry out subsection (b), $2,100,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 and 2001;
       ``(3) to carry out subsection (c), $200,000 for fiscal year 
     2000;
       ``(4) to carry out subsection (d), $500,000 for fiscal year 
     2000; and
       ``(5) to carry out subsection (e), $200,000 for fiscal year 
     2000.''.
        TITLE V--EXTENSION OF VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND

     SEC. 501. EXTENSION.

       (a) In General.--Section 310001(b) of the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) for fiscal year 2001, $4,400,000,000; and
       ``(8) for fiscal year 2002, $4,500,000,000.''.
       (b) Conforming Discretionary Spending Cap Reduction.--Upon 
     enactment of this Act, the discretionary spending limits for 
     fiscal years 2001 and 2002 set forth in section 251(c) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 
     U.S.C. 901(c)) are reduced as follows:
       (1) For fiscal year 2001, $4,400,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $5,981,000,000 in outlays.
       (2) For fiscal year 2002, $4,500,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $4,530,000,000 in outlays.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Burns, 
        Mr. Shelby, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 52. A bill to provide a direct check for education; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                     DIRECT CHECK FOR EDUCATION ACT

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as we start this 106th Congress, I think it 
is clear that education is going to be one of the top priorities we 
will address in this session of Congress. We are going to be working on 
the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and 
I believe all of us, on both sides, are saying that this is a national 
priority.
  As my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator John Kerry, said in a 
speech that he made at Northeastern University, ``Ever since there has 
been a United States of America, there have been public schools. And 
there has been a constant debate about how to make them work.'' I know 
that since I was elected to the United States Senate 12 years ago I 
have listened and participated in the many debates on public education 
that have occurred in this institution. I have even had some ideas of 
my own on how to improve education--some of which have been passed by 
this body and signed into law.
  My intentions, like those of my Senate colleagues--have been good 
intentions. We all share the same goal of providing our children with a 
great education. We have been trying to do the right thing.
  Today, however, our good intentions have mushroomed into burdensome 
regulations, unfunded mandates, and unwanted meddling. Parents, 
teachers, and local school officials have less and less control over 
what happens in the classroom. Instead of empowering parents, teachers, 
and local school officials we have empowered the federal government and 
bureaucrats. We have slowly eroded the opportunity for creativity and 
innovation on the local level and have once again established a system 
where supposedly the Olympians on the hill know what is best for the 
peasants in the valley.
  Mr. President, let me give you some examples of what our good 
intentions have gotten us.
  We have 760 education programs scattered throughout 39 different 
federal agencies. Vice President Gore's National Performance Review 
said that the Department of Education's discretionary grant process 
lasts 26 weeks and takes 487 steps from start to finish. The General 
Accounting Office has estimated that there are nearly 13,400 full-time 
jobs in the 50 states funded by the Department of Education with an 
additional 4,600 direct Department of Education employees.
  We have teachers being taken off the task of teaching, preparing 
lesson plans, taking on after school student activities, etc. and 
instead are researching for grant opportunities, reading regulations, 
preparing applications, filling out paperwork requirements, complying 
with cumbersome rules, and reporting on how they spend the federal 
money received. Or we have teachers and administrators deciding that 
the extra federal money is not worth the time and effort that it will 
take to get and comply with that they do not even bother to go through 
the process.
  Most of us are now aware of the Third International Mathematics and 
Science Study, released last year by the National Center for Education 
Statistics, that ranked American senior high school students 19th out 
of 21 industrialized nations in math, and 16th out of the same 21 
countries in science. In addition, 40 percent of our Nation's fourth 
graders do not read at even a basic level. Colleges across this country 
are spending over $1 billion a year in remedial education.
  Is this acceptable? Are we satisfied with the status quo? The answer 
should be--must be--an unequivocal NO.
  In our business we pay a lot of attention to polls. For several 
years, the polls across the country have been telling us that we have a 
problem with public education. This is not new news and the question 
remains the same: How do we fix public education?
  Mr. President, before I provide my answer to that question I want to 
take this opportunity to read from an editorial from a home-state 
newspaper, the Southeast Missourian.

       Nearly a decade ago, then-President Bush and the nation's 
     governors set a series of goals for America's schoolchildren 
     in reading, math, graduation rates and other measures. But 
     the national education goals panel says the nation's public 
     schools will fall short of the goals for 2000.
       We can only hope these continued failures to improve 
     education will result in a overthrow of the so-called 
     experts. These are the people, usually far removed from the 
     classroom, who embrace quick fixes and fads in the face of 
     each hand-wringing report.
       Unfortunately, the fixes make the problems worse. What's 
     needed is to return America's schools back to the basics and 
     back to local teachers, administrators, school boards, and 
     parents. Without a foundation in the basics, the rest of 
     education just won't take.
       We must take so-called remedies out of the hands of the 
     federal government. National mandates are meaningless for 
     America's schools. The problem must be addressed one district 
     and one school at a time. Why not let classroom teachers--
     instead of bureaucrats and politicians--fashion a plan to 
     improve learning in the classroom? Give more control to the 
     local districts in building reading retention, math skills 
     and graduation rates?

  Mr. President, the editorial goes on, but it ends with the following:


[[Page 798]]

       The answer to fixing America's educational woes rests with 
     individual school boards and passionate educators. The 
     bureaucrats must reduce the red tape and mandates that are 
     strangling our schools. Give those who know best the time, 
     talent and incentives to finally fix public education.

  I agree with the Southeast Missourian. The answer to improving public 
education does not lie within the halls of Congress or in the granite 
buildings of the downtown Washington education establishment. As the 
editorial stated, we are ``far removed from the classroom.''
  In my opinion, the real solutions--the laboratories--are local 
schools when they are given the opportunity to excel and not play the 
``Mother, May I?'' game with Washington.
  Here in Congress we must not be afraid to propose change. But in 
proposing change we must go directly to those who can provide some 
answers--the teachers, principals, school administrators, school board 
members, and parents.
  For the past couple of years, I have done just that and have 
developed in conjunction with them the ``Direct Check for Education 
Act.''
  Quite simply, the purpose of this bill is to consolidate six, 
primarily competitive grant programs of the Department of Education's 
programs. The programs are Goals 2000, School-to-Work, Education 
Technology, Innovative Education Program Strategies, Fund for the 
Improvement of Education, and the President's 100,000 teachers program. 
The bill then proposes to return the federal funding by issuing a 
``Direct Check'' to the local school district based on the number of 
students in each district. The result would be a resource of flexible 
funding that would allow individual schools and parents to determine 
how best to use the funds, including the hiring of new teachers, 
additional classrooms, new textbooks, expanded technology initiatives, 
drug and alcohol prevention programs, etc. The list goes on and on.
  My ``Direct Check'' proposal is not the ``save-all'' answer. But the 
``Direct Check'' will reduce the costly and time-consuming paperwork 
process that local school districts endure in obtaining federal grants 
and funding. It will treat children and schools the same by awarding 
funding to schools based upon the students served instead of rewarding 
some and penalizing others. My ``Direct Check for Education'' is a 
first step in simplifying and going ``back to the basics'' of 
education.
  Mr. President, there will be those in the Washington education 
establishment who will oppose this bill. Instead of finding ways to 
empower those at the local level the opposition will argue that we need 
even more federal programs, more bureaucracy, more micro management of 
the classroom.
  I believe the bottom line is this: Education, while a national 
priority, is a local responsibility. We must empower parents, teachers, 
school administrators, school boards, etc. because education decisions 
can best be made by people at the local schools who know the names and 
the challenges facing the students in those schools.
  Let's keep things simple. Let's take off the Federal stranglehold and 
let local school districts do their jobs. Let's educate our children 
for a lifetime of achievement.
  We have burdened it with excessive regulations and red tape. We have 
once again established a system where supposedly the ``olympians'' on 
the Hill know what is best for the ``peasants'' in the valley.
  I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Education is 
and must be a national priority. But the good intentions that we have 
had in this body have led to the creation of more than 760 Federal 
education programs. Has that made education better? I don't think so. 
We added three more last year. And now we gather that the President is 
going to come up with a grand new Federal scheme. How many people 
really believe that the 764th Federal education program is going to 
assure that our kids can read? Is it going to assure that we get our 
high school students out of the 19th place out of 21 in terms of 
mathematics? I don't believe so.
  Our system is not working. If you want to know how well it is 
working, go back home. Ask the teachers in your local school district. 
Ask the principals in your local school district. Ask the parents at 
home. Ask the school board members. If you do that, I believe you will 
hear what I have heard, time and time again: They are tired of playing 
``Mother, May I?'' with the Federal Government. They are tired of 
spending the time to fill out the forms for the grants, to comply and 
jump through the hoops that the Federal Government sets out for them, 
to write the reports and fill out the evaluation forms that are needed, 
only to have a competitive grant program run out at the end of 3 years. 
They are tired of playing ``Mother, May I?'' with the Federal 
Government.
  We have an opportunity to do something that I think is very 
significant. Instead of going down the road that is going to be 
proposed of another new Federal program, we ought to take the remedies 
out of the hands of the Federal Government. National mandates are 
meaningless for American schools. The problems must be addressed one 
school district, one school, at a time. Why not let classroom teachers, 
the parents, the administrators--instead of bureaucrats and 
politicians--make the decisions on how to improve the education in 
their school districts? Give more control back to local districts and 
let them build reading retention, math skills, and improve graduation 
rates.
  Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill we call the direct check 
for education bill. It takes six of the major Federal competitive grant 
programs--Goals 2000, School-to-Work, Education Technology, Innovative 
Education Program Strategies, the Fund for the Improvement of 
Education, and the President's 100,000 teachers program--and puts them 
into a pool. That pool is to be divided on the basis of the students--K 
through 12--on average daily attendance. And it is to be returned to 
those local school districts on the basis of the number of students 
they have. Very simple. Cut the Federal red tape. Let them use those 
education dollars.
  It starts off with a $3.5-million authorization, because we want to 
allow schools that already have competitive grants of multiyear tenure 
to complete those grants. At the end it will rise to $5 billion. It 
should come out to about $100 per student in every school--and turn the 
job back to the local schools, the parents, the teachers, the school 
board members, the administrators.
  There are those who oppose this approach. They argue that we need 
even more Federal control. But as I said at the beginning, while it is 
a national priority, education must be returned to the local school 
districts as a local responsibility, to empower the people who know the 
names of the kids, their problems, their challenges, and their 
opportunities, to make the decision.
  Let's keep things simple. Let's take off the Federal stranglehold. 
Let's let local schools do their jobs. Let's educate our children for a 
lifetime of achievement. Ask your teachers, your principals, your 
superintendents, your school board members; and then I ask my 
colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation that Senator 
Ashcroft and I are introducing today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
common questions about the direct check for education bill be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 52

       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 ``Direct Check for Education 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) education should be a national priority but must remain 
     a local responsibility;
       (2) the Federal Government's regulations and involvement 
     often creates barriers and obstacles to local creativity and 
     reform;
       (3) parents, teachers, and local school districts must be 
     allowed and empowered to set local education priorities; and
       (4) schools and education professionals must be accountable 
     to the people and children served.

[[Page 799]]



     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 14101 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8801).
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the United 
     States Virgin Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 
     the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of 
     Palau.

     SEC. 4. DIRECT AWARDS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

       (a) Direct Awards.--From amounts appropriated under 
     subsection (b) and not used to carry out subsection (c), the 
     Secretary shall make direct awards to local educational 
     agencies in amounts determined under subsection (e) to enable 
     the local educational agencies to support programs or 
     activities, for kindergarten through grade 12 students, that 
     the local educational agencies deem appropriate.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this Act $3,500,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2000 and 2001, $4,000,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and $5,000,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2004.
       (c) Multiyear Awards.--The Secretary shall use funds 
     appropriated under subsection (b) for each fiscal year to 
     continue to make payments to eligible recipients pursuant to 
     any multiyear award made prior to the date of enactment of 
     this Act under the provisions of law repealed under 
     subsection (d). The payments shall be made for the duration 
     of the multiyear award.
       (d) Repeals.--The following provisions of law are repealed:
       (1) The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20 U.S.C. 5801 et 
     seq.).
       (2) Section 307 of the Department of Education 
     Appropriations Act, 1999.
       (3) Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.).
       (4) Part B of title VI of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7331 et seq.).
       (5) Part A of title X of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8001 et seq.).
       (6) The School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 
     6101 et seq.).
       (e) Determination of Amount.--
       (1) Per child amount.--The Secretary, using the information 
     provided under subsection (f), shall determine a per child 
     amount for a year by dividing the total amount appropriated 
     under subsection (b) for the year, by the average daily 
     attendance of kindergarten through grade 12 students in all 
     States for the preceding year.
       (2) Local educational agency award.--The Secretary, using 
     the information provided under subsection (f), shall 
     determine the amount provided to each local educational 
     agency under this section for a year by multiplying--
       (A) the per child amount determined under paragraph (1) for 
     the year; by
       (B) the average daily attendance of kindergarten through 
     grade 12 students that are served by the local educational 
     agency for the preceding year.
       (f) Census Determination.--
       (1) In general.--Each local educational agency shall 
     conduct a census to determine the average daily attendance of 
     kindergarten through grade 12 students served by the local 
     educational agency not later than December 1 of each year.
       (2) Submission.--Each local educational agency shall submit 
     the number described in paragraph (1) to the Secretary not 
     later than March 1 of each year.
       (g) Penalty.--If the Secretary determines that a local 
     educational agency has knowingly submitted false information 
     under subsection (f) for the purpose of gaining additional 
     funds under this section, then the local educational agency 
     shall be fined an amount equal to twice the difference 
     between the amount the local educational agency received 
     under this section, and the correct amount the local 
     educational agency would have received under this section if 
     the agency had submitted accurate information under 
     subsection (f).
       (h) Disbursal.--The Secretary shall disburse the amount 
     awarded to a local educational agency under this Act for a 
     fiscal year not later than July 1 of each year.

     SEC. 5. AUDIT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may conduct audits of the 
     expenditures of local educational agencies under this Act to 
     ensure that the funds made available under this Act are used 
     in accordance with this Act.
       (b) Sanctions and Penalties.--If the Secretary determines 
     that the funds made available under section 4 were not used 
     in accordance with section 4(a), the Secretary may use the 
     enforcement provisions available to the Secretary under part 
     D of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1234 et 
     seq.).
                                  ____

  


         Common Questions About the Direct Check for Education

     What programs make up the new Direct Check for Education?
       Goals 2000; School-to-Work; Education Technology (Title 
     III); Innovative Education Program Strategies (Part B, Title 
     VI); Fund for the Improvement of Education (Part A, Title X); 
     100,000 Teachers.
     What is the level of funding for the Direct Check for 
         Education?
       Based on fiscal year 1999 appropriations first year funding 
     could be more than $3.5 billion. Over 5 years the ``Direct 
     Check'' total could provide over $20 billion in direct checks 
     to local schools.
     How can the Direct Check funds by spent?
       The local school district, with parents, teachers, 
     administrators, etc., would have the flexibility to spend the 
     funds on what they determine to be the priorities--new 
     teachers, new classrooms, textbooks, computers, drug 
     prevention programs, etc.
     Does the Direct Check for Education impact Title I funding 
         for disadvantaged students?
       The bill does not make any changes to Title I.
     How are private schools affected by the Direct Check for 
         Education?
       The bill makes no changes affecting private schools.
     How will States and the federal government be sure the funds 
         are properly spent?
       The Department of Education will have post-audit review 
     authority and would retain the same sanctions and penalties 
     currently in place.
     What will determine the Direct Check amount for a local 
         school?
       The total amount for funds provided divided by the number 
     of students nationally will give you a per student average. 
     That average multiplied by the number of students in a local 
     school will give that school the amount of its ``Direct 
     Check''.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Senior 
Senator from Missouri for his introduction of the ``Direct Check for 
Education'' bill. It is with great pleasure that I add my name as a 
cosponsor of this important legislation, which will improve the 
educational opportunities for our nation's school children by sending 
federal resources directly to local school districts to use in the way 
they know will benefit students most effectively.
  Mr. President, when we talk about education, we should start by 
asking: ``What do our parents want for their children? We know that 
parents want their children to get a first-class education that boosts 
student achievement and elevates them to excellence. Parents want 
schools that are safe, classes that are small, and principals and 
teachers to have authority to make the right decisions in all areas of 
learning, school discipline and after-school activities. Parents want 
teachers who care for students and know the subjects they teach. 
Parents do not want Washington in control of classrooms.
  The next question we should ask is: How can we attain what parents 
want? How can our children achieve academic excellence? The House 
Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations answered this question in a report released in July 
1998, called ``Education at a Crossroads: What Works and What's Wasted 
in Education Today.'' The Subcommittee found that successful schools 
and school systems were not the product of federal funding and 
directives, but instead were characterized by: parental involvement in 
the education of their children, local control, emphasis on basic 
academics, and dollars spent in the classroom, not on distant 
bureaucracy and ineffective programs. These are the ingredients we must 
have to elevate educational performance.
  Knowing the ingredients of educational success for our children, we 
must next ask whether our current federal education programs contain 
these ingredients.
  First, we should observe that in a sense, the federal government has 
played conflicting roles in education, providing resources with one 
hand, while creating obstacles with the other. We have spent over $12 
billion on major education programs in the last two years, and this 
year, we are slated to spend nearly $15 billion. Yet, if current trends 
continue, only about 65% of federal education dollars will be spent 
this year on educating our children,

[[Page 800]]

due to the excessive bureaucracy in our federal programs.
  And we should remember that federal funding accounts for only about 
7% of the total amount spent on education, while the lion's share comes 
from state and local taxes. However, that 7% of the funding pie 
consumes a disproportionate share of the time states and local school 
districts need to administer education programs. Unfortunately, most 
federal education programs often do not contain the basic ingredients 
for educational success, but rather contain components that can 
actually stifle the ingredients for success.
  In the last 35 years, the federal government has continued to take 
away parental involvement, local control, flexibility, and teacher and 
community input by spinning a complex web of federal elementary and 
secondary education programs, each of which contain their own set of 
rules that consume the time and resources of states and school 
districts.
  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.
  Many federal programs have taken away precious dollars and teacher 
time. Rather than being able to spend time on classroom preparation, 
teachers instead have to spend hours filling out federal forms to 
comply with federal rules.
  Another problem with a number of our federal education programs is 
that many of our children and school districts never get to see the 
federal tax dollars that their parents pay for education. This is 
because a great deal of federal educational funding is awarded on a 
competitive basis. In essence, local schools must come to Washington 
and beg for the money taxpayers sent to the federal treasury. As a 
result, smaller and poorer schools, who don't have the time and money 
to wade through thick grant applications or hire a grant writer, cannot 
share in the money their parents sent to the federal government.
  To make matters worse, once a school district is successful in 
obtaining a competitive grant after a harrowing application process, it 
must spend countless hours and resources complying with the leviathan 
of regulations and rules attached to the grant.
  Competitive funding, along with the vast number of federal education 
programs, has led to a cottage industry in selling information on 
education program descriptions, filing instructions, and application 
deadlines for each of these programs. The ``Education at a Crossroads'' 
report I mentioned earlier describes this cottage industry:

       ``The Education Funding Research Council identifies 
     potential sources of funds for local school districts, and 
     sells for nearly $400 the Guide to Federal Funding for 
     Education. The company promises to steer its subscribers to 
     ``a wide range of Federal programs,'' and offers these 
     subscribers timely updates on ``500 education programs.'' 
     More recently, the Aid for Education Report published by CD 
     Publications advertised that ``huge sums are available. . .in 
     the federal government alone, there are nearly 800 different 
     education programs that receive authorization totaling almost 
     a hundred billion dollars.''

  It's a shame that a school district has to pay $400 for a catalog to 
learn how to get back the money that its community has sent to 
Washington to educate its children. But sadly, this is often the case.
  A third problem we can identify with many current federal education 
programs is that federal dollars are often earmarked for one particular 
use, and cannot be used for any other purpose. This inflexible funding 
hurts schools that have other needs than the ones prescribed by the 
federal government. A recent example of this is the $1.2 billion 
earmarked last year for classroom size reduction. While more teachers 
and class size reduction are noble endeavors, some schools don't need 
more teachers, but instead need more computers. However, the only use 
of this $1.2 billion can be for hiring more teachers. Such a policy 
flies in the face of one ingredient for educational success, local 
control.
  So, we know we have created a lot of federal education programs and 
we have dedicated a great deal of resources for these programs. What 
results are we getting? The National Center for Education Statistics' 
NAEP 1994 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States reveals 
that 40 percent of fourth graders do not read at a basic level. The 
same report also indicates that half of the students from urban school 
districts fail to graduate on time, if at all. And the NAEP Report Card 
also shows that United States 12th graders only outperformed two out of 
21 nations in mathematics. The Brookings Institution released a study 
in April of 1998 indicating that public institutions of higher 
education have to spend $1 billion each year on remedial education for 
students.
  Knowing these disastrous results, we cannot afford to keep spending 
our federal education dollars in the same way we have been doing for 
years if it's not stimulating academic success. Parents, teachers, 
school boards, and members of our community won't stand for this kind 
of failure. They want and need opportunities to be more involved in 
deciding how to spend the federal education dollar, because they know 
what works. We must spend our federal resources for elementary and 
secondary education in ways that embrace the ingredients of success.
  Rather than fund the patchwork of federal elementary and secondary 
education programs that Washington wants, Congress should send that 
money directly to local school districts. Parents and teachers need the 
financing, flexibility and freedom to fund programs they know will 
improve their children's education.
  Senator Bond's ``Direct Check for Education'' proposal does just 
this. He takes some of the Department of Education's largest 
competitive grant programs and returns the money in the form of a 
``direct check'' to the local school districts based on the number of 
students in each district. Schools may use the funds in ways they 
believe will be most effective in elevating student achievement.
  Under the ``Direct Check'' proposal, no longer would school districts 
have to come to Washington and beg for the money they sent to 
Washington to educate their children. No longer would teachers and 
administrators have to spend countless and wasted hours filling out 
federal grant application and compliance forms. No longer would schools 
be forced to earmark federal dollars for programs that have no 
relevance to their students' needs. Rather, school districts with the 
input of teachers, school boards, administrators, and of course, 
parents, would have the authority and flexibility to use federal 
dollars for what they best see fit.
  For example, local schools could deploy resources to hire new 
teachers, raise teacher salaries, buy new textbooks or new computers--
whatever the schools deem most important to the educational success of 
their students. The Direct Check to Education proposals gives schools 
more time, flexibility, and money to spend on what's most important: 
providing classroom instruction to our nation's children.
  With the flexible, equitable distribution of federal funding under 
Senator Bond's proposal comes accountability. Local school districts 
will be penalized for knowingly submitting false information regarding 
the number of students in their districts. Moreover, the Secretary of 
Education may audit local educational agency expenditures to ensure 
that funds are used in accordance with the Direct Check in Education 
Act. And most importantly, parents, school boards, and members of the 
community will be able to give direct input into funding decisions, 
since those decisions will be made right in the community, rather than 
hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of miles away in Washington, D.C. 
Local decision making allows for local accountability.

[[Page 801]]

  Mr. President, we have learned from experience that our many of our 
current federal education programs and dollars are not producing what 
we expect for our students. We know that successful education programs 
occur when crucial decisions are made by local communities, teachers, 
school boards, and parents. This is why I support Senator Bond's 
``Direct Check for Education'' proposal. His plan embraces the 
ingredients of educational success, as it gives parents, teachers and 
school boards the authority and flexibility to direct funds to programs 
they know work for their children.
  As I said earlier, Senator Bond's proposal consolidates a number of 
the Department of Education's federal programs for elementary and 
secondary education. I believe we should explore whether other federal 
education programs--both within and outside the Department of 
Education--should also be taken and put into a ``direct check'' to our 
local school districts. We must continue to look for ways to direct our 
federal resources in ways that reflect the ingredients of success and 
educational excellence for our children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. Coverdell):
  S. 53. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 
reduction in the capital gain rates for all taxpayers and a partial 
dividend income exclusion for individuals, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.


              capitol gains and dividend income reform act

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL:
  S. 54. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the corporate alternative minimum tax; to the Committee on Finance.


                        corporate tax equity act

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. Coverdell):
  S. 55. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit the 
tax rate for certain small businesses, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                small business investment and growth act

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Allard, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
        Cochran, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Gramm, Mr. 
        Grams, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
        Mack, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, 
        Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Sessions):


                    family heritage preservation act

  S. 56. A bill to repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes and the tax 
on generation-skipping transfers; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I introduce a series of bills designed 
to help sustain the economic expansion and enhance the rate of economic 
growth in this country. The four measures, which together make up what 
I refer to as the Agenda for Economic Growth and Opportunity, will help 
encourage investment in small businesses, enhance the wages of American 
workers, and make our country more competitive in the global economy.
  Mr. President, it was just over 36 years ago that President John F. 
Kennedy made the following observation in his State of the Union 
message--an observation that someone could just as easily make about 
today's economy. He said, ``America has enjoyed 22 months of 
uninterrupted economic recovery.'' The current expansion, albeit weaker 
than most during this century, has gone on somewhat longer. ``But,'' 
President Kennedy went on to say, ``recovery is not enough. If we are 
to prevail in the long run, we must expand the long-run strength of our 
economy. We must move along the path to a higher rate of economic 
growth.''
  Economic growth. The concept is studied endlessly by economists and 
statisticians, but what does it mean for the average American family, 
and why should policy-makers be so concerned about it?
  For most of the 20th century, our nation enjoyed very strong rates of 
economic growth and the dividends that came with it. The 1920s saw 
annual economic growth above five percent. In the 1950s, it was above 
six percent. Economic growth during the Kennedy and Johnson years 
averaged 4.8 percent annually. During the years after the Reagan tax 
cuts and before the 1990 tax increase, the economy grew at an average 
rate of 3.9 percent a year, according to data supplied by the Joint 
Economic Committee.
  The Clinton years, by contrast, have actually seen the economy grow 
at a much slower rate--an average rate of only about 2.3 percent a 
year. And recent estimates by the Congressional Budget Office project 
that the growth of real Gross Domestic Product is likely to slow to 
just over two percent for the last part of 1998 and the early part of 
1999. What that means is that, while we may not exactly be hurting as a 
nation, we are not becoming much better off, either. We are certainly 
not leaving much of a legacy for our children and grandchildren to meet 
the needs of tomorrow.
  Slower growth means fewer job opportunities in the days ahead for 
young Americans just entering the workforce and for those people 
seeking to free themselves from the welfare rolls. It means stagnant 
wages and salaries, and fewer opportunities for career advancement for 
those who do have jobs. It means less investment in new plants and 
equipment, and new technology--things needed to enhance productivity 
and ensure that American businesses can remain competitive in the 
global marketplace.
  So what do we do to spur economic growth--to ensure that jobs will 
continue to be available for those who want them, that families can 
earn better wages, and that American business maintains a dominant role 
in the global economy? Those are, after all, the goals of the agenda I 
am laying out today--an agenda for economic growth and opportunity for 
all Americans, for those struggling to make ends meet today, and for 
our children when they enter the workforce tomorrow.
  Let me begin my answer with another quotation from John Kennedy:

       ``[I]t is increasingly clear--to those in Government, 
     business, and labor who are responsible for our economy's 
     success--that our obsolete tax system exerts too heavy a drag 
     on private purchasing power, profits, and employment. 
     Designed to check inflation in earlier years, it now checks 
     growth instead. It discourages extra effort and risk. It 
     distorts use of resources. It invites recurrent recessions, 
     depresses our Federal revenues, and causes chronic budget 
     deficits.''

  Mr. President, although we managed to balance the unified budget last 
year, there is still much in what President Kennedy said that is 
relevant to our situation today. Consider, for example, that we 
balanced the budget by taxing and spending at a level of about $1.72 
trillion--a level of spending that is 25 percent higher than when 
President Clinton took office just six years ago. Our government now 
spends the equivalent of $6,700 for every man, woman, and child in the 
country every year. That is the equivalent of nearly $27,000 for the 
average family of four. But all of that spending comes at a tremendous 
cost to hard-working taxpayers. As President Kennedy put it, it is a 
drag on private purchasing power, profits, and employment.
  The Tax Foundation estimates that the median income family in America 
saw its combined federal, state, and local tax bill climb to 37.6 
percent of income in 1997--up from 37.3 percent the year before. That 
is more than the average family spends on food, clothing, shelter, and 
transportation combined. Put another way, in too many families, one 
parent is working to put food on the table, while the other is working 
almost full time just to pay the bill for the government bureaucracy.
  Perhaps a different measure of how heavy a tax burden the federal 
government is imposing--how big is the drag on the economy--would be 
helpful here. Consider that federal revenues hit a peacetime high of 
19.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1997 and, according to 
the Congressional Budget Office, will continue to climb--to 20.5 
percent in 1998 and 20.6 percent in 1999. That will be higher than any 
year since 1945, and it would be only the third and

[[Page 802]]

fourth years in our nation's entire history that revenues have exceeded 
20 percent of national income. Notably, the first two times revenues 
broke the 20 percent mark, the economy tipped into recession.
  Mr. President, the agenda I am proposing attacks some of the most 
significant deficiencies in our nation's Tax Code that are inhibiting 
savings and investment, and job creation--deficiencies that keep us 
from reaching our potential as a nation. I do not make these proposals 
as a substitute for fundamental tax reform or an across-the-board 
reduction in income-tax rates, which I believe are the ultimate 
solutions to the problem. But fundamental tax reform is going to take 
some time to accomplish, maybe several years. And I am not convinced 
that President Clinton will ever agree to an across-the-board reduction 
in tax rates. Therefore, what we need now are interim steps--things we 
can do quickly--to make sure our movement into the 21st century is 
based on the bedrock of a strong and growing economy.
  These Tax Code changes will help strengthen the economy and, in turn, 
produce more revenue for the federal government to help keep the budget 
balanced. Recent experience proves that it is a strong and growing 
economy--not high tax rates--that generates substantial amounts of new 
revenue for the Treasury. It was the growing economy that helped 
eliminate last year's unified budget deficit.
  Mr. President, the first of the four tax-related bills I am 
introducing is based primarily upon President John Kennedy's own growth 
package from three decades ago. Like the Kennedy plan, the legislation 
would reduce the percentage of long-term capital gains included in 
individual income subject to tax to 30 percent. It would reduce the 
alternative tax on the capital gains of corporations to 22 percent.
  I would note that Democratic President John Kennedy's plan called for 
a deeper capital gains tax cut than the Republican-controlled Congress 
passed in 1997.
  There was a reason that John Kennedy called for a significant cut in 
the capital gains tax. ``The present tax treatment of capital gains and 
losses is both inequitable and a barrier to economic growth,'' the 
President said. ``The tax on capital gains directly affects investment 
decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital from static to more 
dynamic situations, the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures 
in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth 
of the economy.''
  So if we are concerned whether new jobs are being created, whether 
new technology is developed, whether workers have the tools they need 
to do a better, more efficient job, we should support measures that 
reduce the cost of capital to facilitate the achievement of all these 
things. Remember, for every employee, there is an employer who took 
risks, made investments, and created jobs. But that employer needed 
capital to start. Economist Allen Sinai estimates that a capital-gains 
tax reduction would help businesses create as many as 500,000 new jobs.
  A capital-gains tax reduction would provide critical help to the 
country's entrepreneurs, especially those striving to open their own 
small businesses or grow their businesses. Small business is, after 
all, that engine that drives the nation's economy. In Arizona, about 
half of those businesses are run by women. An estimated 130,000 women-
owned businesses in the state employ more than 330,000 people. These 
are precisely the kind of firms that have difficulty securing the 
capital they need to expand. High capital-gains taxes are one reason 
why.
  Mr. President, it may come as a surprise to some people, but 
experience shows that lower capital-gains tax rates help not only small 
businesses and the economy, but federal revenues as well. The most 
impressive evidence, as noted in a recent report by the American 
Council for Capital Formation, can be found in the period from 1978 to 
1985. During those years, the top marginal federal tax rate on capital 
gains was cut significantly--from 35 percent to 20 percent--but total 
individual capital gains tax receipts nearly tripled--from $9.1 billion 
to $26.5 billion annually.
  Data from the National Bureau of Economic Research indicates that the 
maximizing capital gains tax rate--that is, the rate that would bring 
in the most Treasury revenue--is somewhere between nine and 21 percent. 
The Joint Economic Committee estimates that the optimal rate is 
probably 15 percent or less. The bill I am introducing today would set 
an effective top rate on capital gains earned by individuals, by virtue 
of the 70 percent exclusion, at 11.88 percent.
  Mr. President, when capital gains tax rates are too high, people need 
only hold onto their assets to avoid the tax indefinitely. No sale, no 
tax. But that means less investment, fewer new businesses and new jobs, 
and--as historical surveys show--far less revenue to the Treasury than 
if capital gains taxes were set at a lower level. Just as the local 
department store does not lose money on weekend sales--because volume 
more than makes up for lower prices--lower capital gains tax rates can 
encourage more economic activity and, in turn, produce more revenue for 
the government.
  Capital gains reform will help the Treasury. A capital gains tax 
reduction would help unlock a sizable share of the estimated $7 
trillion of capital that is left virtually unused because of high tax 
rates. More importantly, it will help the family that has a small plot 
of land it would like to sell, or a small business that would like to 
expand, buy new equipment, and create new jobs.
  Moreover, evidence shows that most of the tax savings will go to 
Americans of modest means. According to Internal Revenue Service data, 
almost 53 percent of taxpayers reporting capital gains had adjusted 
gross incomes of less than $50,000. Another 28 percent have AGIs 
between $50,000 and $100,000.
  Nearly two years ago, this Congress reduced capital gains taxes, but 
it did so in a way that added substantially to the complexity of the 
Tax Code. And, in my view, it did not cut the tax rate enough. John 
Kennedy's idea--that is, simply providing a 70 percent exclusion--was a 
superior approach, and that is what I am proposing today.
  Mr. President, the second part of this bill proposes a similar 
exclusion for dividend income. The rationale is twofold: first, to 
further encourage saving and investment; and second, to eliminate any 
bias in the Tax Code that might favor investments whose returns are 
paid primarily in capital gains over those that pay dividends. With 
recent reductions in the capital-gains tax, there may now be more 
incentive to invest in instruments that produce earnings taxed at the 
low capital-gains rate, as opposed to investing for dividends which are 
taxed at the regular, higher income-tax rate. My bill proposes to put 
dividend income on par with capital gains for purposes of levying an 
income tax.
  The exclusion for dividend income would also go a long way toward 
eliminating the double taxation of such income, which is currently 
taxed once at the corporate level and then again when it is provided to 
investors in the form of dividends. A report by the American Council 
for Capital Formation notes that dividend income is taxed more heavily 
in the United States than in most other industrialized countries. The 
Council indicates that dividend income is subject to a U.S. tax rate of 
60.4 percent, compared to an average of 51.1 percent abroad. This high 
rate is due to the double taxation of dividend income.
  Mr. President, the second in this series of bills is the Corporate 
Tax Equity Act, a bill designed to help U.S. businesses make larger 
capital expenditures and thereby enhance productivity and job creation 
by repealing the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
  Mr. President, the original intent of the AMT was to make it harder 
for large, profitable corporations to avoid paying any federal income 
tax. But the way to have accomplished that objective was not, in my 
view, to impose an AMT, but to identify and correct the provisions of 
law that allowed large companies to inappropriately lower their federal 
tax liabilities to begin

[[Page 803]]

with. Ironically, the primary shelters corporations were using to 
minimize their tax liability--that is, the accelerated depreciation and 
safe harbor leasing of the old Tax Code--were being corrected at the 
time the AMT was enacted.
  I would point out that the AMT is not a tax, per se. As indicated in 
an April 3, 1996 report by the Congressional Research Service, the AMT 
is merely intended to serve as a prepayment of the regular corporate 
income tax, not a permanent increase in overall corporate tax 
liability. What that means in practical terms is that businesses are 
forced to make interest-free loans to the federal government under the 
guise of the AMT. Corporations pay a tax for which they are not liable, 
but which they are able to apply toward their future regular tax 
liability.
  I would also point out that most of the corporations paying the AMT 
are relatively small. The General Accounting Office, in a 1995 report 
on the issue, found that, in most years between 1987 and 1992, more 
than 70 percent of corporations paying the AMT had less than $10 
million in assets.
  The AMT requires corporations to calculate their tax liability under 
two separate but parallel income-tax systems. Firms must calculate 
their AMT liability even if they end up paying the regular tax. At a 
minimum, that means that firms must maintain two sets of records for 
tax purposes.
  The compliance costs are substantial. In 1992, for example, while 
only about 28,000 corporations paid the AMT, more than 400,000 
corporations filed the AMT form, and an even greater--but unknown--
number of firms performed the calculations needed to determine their 
AMT liability. A 1993 analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation found 
that the AMT added 16.9 percent to a corporation's total cost of 
complying with federal income tax laws.
  Mr. President, repealing the corporate AMT would help free up badly 
needed capital to assist in business expansion and job creation. 
According to a study by DRI/McGraw-Hill, AMT repeal would have 
increased fixed investment by a total of 7.9 percent, raised Gross 
Domestic Product by 1.6 percent, and increased labor productivity by 
1.6 percent between 1996 and 2005. The study also projected that repeal 
would produce an additional 100,000 jobs a year during the years 1998 
to 2002.
  Mr. President, the third bill in this package is the Small Business 
Investment and Growth Act, which would ensure that small businesses do 
not pay a higher income-tax rate than large corporations. Congressman 
Phil Crane of Illinois has been promoting similar legislation in the 
House of Representatives.
  Mr. President, the 1990 and 1993 increases in marginal income-tax 
rates put a tremendous strain on the nearly two million small 
businesses around the country that are organized as S corporations. 
Since these small businesses pay taxes at the individual income-tax 
rate, they can be subject to rates as high as 39.6 percent--higher than 
any other corporate entity. By contrast, the top rate imposed on large 
corporations is only 34 percent.
  What sense is there in imposing tax rates on small businesses that 
are higher than those levied on better financed corporations? Estimates 
indicate that successful American businesses have been able to create 
three to four new jobs for every additional $100,000 they retain in the 
business. So higher taxes are counterproductive. They deny small 
businesses the funds they need to invest in new jobs, new equipment, 
and new facilities. That hurts small companies. And it hurts the 
economy.
  The bill I am introducing today would establish a top rate of 34 
percent when a small business reinvests its earnings in its operation, 
or when the earnings are distributed to the shareholders for the 
purposes of making tax payments. This lower tax rate would be 
applicable only to the first $5 million in taxable income of the small 
business.
  The bill is a similar, but expanded, version of legislation that I 
introduced during the 105th Congress. Although the latest version would 
provide relief to more S corporations, I want to make it clear that I 
would prefer to provide tax relief to all businesses. And since taxes 
paid by businesses are merely passed along in the form of higher 
prices, we are really talking about providing relief to all consumers.
  The Small Business Investment and Growth Act represents an important 
first step toward reducing excessive taxes on small business and 
encouraging S corporation owners and managers to reinvest income into 
their businesses, thereby creating more jobs and fueling economic 
growth. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure 
and reducing the tax burden imposed on America's small businesses.
  Mr. President, the fourth in the series of economic growth incentives 
is a bill to repeal the federal estate, or death, tax.
  Mr. President, it was Ben Franklin who said some 200 years ago that 
nothing in this world is certain except death and taxes. Leave it to 
the federal government to find a way to put those two inevitabilities 
together to create a death tax that is not only confiscatory, but 
offensive to Americans' sense of fairness, harmful to the environment, 
and injurious to small business and the economy.
  Although most Americans will probably never pay a death tax, most 
people still sense that there is something terribly wrong with a system 
that allows Washington to seize more than half of whatever is left 
after someone dies--a system that prevents hard-working Americans from 
passing the bulk of their nest eggs to their children or grandchildren. 
The respected liberal Professor of Law at the University of Southern 
California, Edward J. McCaffrey, put it this way: ``Polls and practices 
show that we like sin taxes, such as on alcohol and cigarettes.'' ``The 
estate tax,'' he went on to say, ``is an anti-sin, or a virtue tax. It 
is a tax on work and savings without consumption, on thrift, on long 
term savings. There is no reason even a liberal populace need support 
it.''
  Democrat economists Henry Aaron and Alicia Munnell reached similar 
conclusions, writing in a 1992 study that death taxes ``have failed to 
achieve their intended purposes. They raise little revenue. They impose 
large excess burdens. They are unfair.''
  In fact, 77 percent of the people responding to a survey by the 
Polling Company last year indicated that they favor repeal of the death 
tax. When Californians had the chance to weigh in with a ballot 
proposition, they voted two-to-one to repeal their state's death tax. 
The legislatures of five other states have enacted legislation since 
1997 that will either eliminate or significantly reduce the burden of 
their states' death taxes.
  Talk to the men and women who run small businesses around the country 
and you will find that death taxes are a major concern to them. The 
1995 White House Conference on Small Business identified the death tax 
as one of small business's top concerns, and delegates to the 
conference voted overwhelming to endorse its repeal.
  Remember, this is a tax that is imposed on a family business at the 
moment when it is least able to afford the payment--upon the death of 
the person with the greatest practical and institutional knowledge of 
that business's operations. It should come as no surprise, then, that a 
1993 study by Prince and Associates--a Stratford, Connecticut research 
and consulting firm--found that nine out of 10 family businesses that 
failed within three years of the principal owner's death attributed 
their companies' demise to trouble paying the death tax. Six out of 10 
family-owned businesses fail to make it to the second generation. The 
death tax is a major reason why.
  Think of what that means to women and minority-owned businesses in 
particular. Instead of passing a hard-earned and successful business on 
to the next generation, many families have to sell the company in order 
to pay the death tax. The upward mobility of such families is stopped 
in its tracks. The proponents of this tax always speak of the need to 
hinder ``concentrations of wealth.'' What the tax really hinders is new 
American success stories.

[[Page 804]]

  Even if a family does not have to sell its business to pay the death 
tax, there are still significant costs that are imposed either directly 
or indirectly. Some people simply take preemptive action--they slow the 
growth of their businesses to limit their death-tax burden. Of course, 
that means less investment in our communities and fewer jobs created. 
Others divert money they would have spent on new equipment or new hires 
to insurance policies designed to cover death-tax costs. Still others 
spend millions on lawyers, accountants, and other advisors for death-
tax planning purposes. But that leaves fewer resources to invest in the 
company, start up new businesses, hire additional people, or pay better 
wages.
  What that suggests to me is that, although the death tax raises only 
about one percent of the federal government's annual revenue, it exerts 
a disproportionately large and negative impact on the economy. Alicia 
Munnell, who belonged to President Clinton's Council of Economic 
Advisors, estimates that the costs of complying with death-tax laws are 
of roughly the same magnitude as the revenue raised, or about $23 
billion in 1998. In other words, for every dollar of tax revenue raised 
by the death tax, another dollar is squandered in the economy simply to 
comply with or avoid the tax.
  Over time, the adverse consequences are compounded. A report issued 
by the Joint Economic Committee just last month concluded that the 
existence of the death tax this century has reduced the stock of 
capital in the economy by nearly half a trillion dollars.
  By repealing it and putting those resources to better use, the Joint 
Committee estimates that as many as 240,000 jobs could be created over 
seven years and Americans would have an additional $24.4 billion in 
disposable personal income.
  Is it not better to encourage the creation of new jobs for tax-paying 
Americans than to impose a tax that puts people out of work or lowers 
their income? I think so, and that is why I favor repeal of the death 
tax.
  Mr. President, I suggested a moment ago that the death tax had a 
harmful effect, not only on the economy, but on the environment, as 
well. That is something that we need to consider here. An increasing 
number of families that own environmentally sensitive lands are having 
to sell the property for development in order to pay the death tax. 
Natural habitats are being destroyed as a result. With that in mind, 
Michael Bean of The Nature Conservancy observed that the death tax is 
``highly regressive in the sense that it encourages the destruction of 
ecologically important land.'' It represents a real and present threat 
to endangered and threatened species and their habitats.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by citing the report issued a few 
years ago by the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform, 
because it goes back to the point about fairness in a very poignant 
way. The Commission concluded that ``[i]t makes little sense and is 
patently unfair to impose extra taxes on people who choose to pass 
their assets on to their children and grandchildren instead of spending 
them lavishly on themselves.'' I agree. The Commission went on to 
endorse repeal of the death tax.
  Mr. President, the Agenda for Economic Growth and Opportunity will 
help keep the economy on track--it will help forestall the recession 
that some economists predict is on the way. It will help improve the 
standard of living for all Americans. I invite my colleagues' support 
for this very important initiative.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Robb, and Mr. 
        Warner):
  S. 57. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for 
the establishment of a program under which long-term care insurance is 
made available to Federal employees and annuitants, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

                          ____________________