[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 804-815]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      FEDERAL EMPLOYEES GROUP LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE ACT OF 1999

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Federal 
Employees Group Long-Term Care Insurance Act of 1999''. This important 
legislation will provide long-term care insurance to federal employees 
and retirees. It will also create a model for other employers to use in 
providing long-term care insurance for their workers. I am proud that 
this legislation is part of the Democratic agenda for long term care--
which includes the $1,000 tax credit for families who are paying the 
costs of long-term care.
  Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to help people 
afford the burdens of long-term care. Ten years ago, I introduced 
legislation to change the cruel rules that forced elderly couples to go 
bankrupt before they could get any help in paying for nursing home 
care. Because of my legislation, AARP tells me that we've kept over six 
hundred thousand people out of poverty and stopped liens on family 
farms.
  I also fought for higher quality standards for nursing homes. Through 
the Older American Act funded senior centers, I've made it easier for 
seniors to get the information and referrals they need to make good 
choices about long-term care. Those same centers offer case managers to 
help families navigate the dizzying array of choices when faced with 
choosing long term care for a family member.
  These are important steps. But unfortunately, we haven't made much 
progress in the last few years. We've been stymied by bipartisan 
bickering, shutdowns and inaction.
  Meanwhile, the costs of long-term care have exploded. Nursing home 
costs are projected to increase from $40,000 today to $97,000 by 2030. 
This will only get worse since the number of senior citizens will 
double over the next thirty years. Families are being forced to chose 
between sending a child to college or paying for a nursing home for a 
parent.
  Families desperately need help to help themselves and meet their 
family responsibilities.
  This bill is a down payment on making long term care available for 
all Americans. Let me tell you what my legislation will do:
  It will enable federal workers and retirees to purchase long-term 
care insurance.
  It will provide help to those who practice self-help by offering 
employees the option to better prepare for their retirement and the 
potential need for long-term care.
  It will enable federal employees to pay at group discounted rates. 
The purchasing power of the federal workforce will empower them to get 
the best deal.
  Federal employees would pay the entire premium for their long-term 
care insurance, but that premium will be 15% to 20% less than they 
would pay individually on the open market. This is a good deal for 
federal workers--and for taxpayers.
  I'm starting with federal employees for two reasons. First, as our 
nation's largest employer, the federal government can be a model for 
employers around the country. By offering long-term care insurance to 
its employees, the federal government can set the example for other 
employers whose workforce will be facing the same long-term care needs. 
We can use the lessons learned to help other employers to offer this 
option to their workers.
  I have a second reason for starting with our federal employees. I am 
a strong supporter of our federal employees. I am proud that so many of 
them live, work, and retire in Maryland. They work hard in the service 
of our country. And I work hard for them. Whether it's fighting for 
fair COLAs, against disruptive and harmful shutdowns of the federal 
government, or to prevent unwise schemes to privatize important 
services our federal workforce provide, they can count on me.
  Promise made should be promises kept. Federal retirees made a 
commitment to devote their careers to public service. In return, our 
government made certain promises to them.
  One important promise made was the promise of health insurance. We 
promised our federal workers and their families that they would have 
health insurance while they were working and

[[Page 805]]

during their retirement. The lack of long-term care for federal workers 
has been a big gap in this important promise to our federal workers. My 
legislation will close that gap and provide our federal workers and 
retirees with comprehensive health insurance.
  I am proud that Senator Sarbanes and Senator Robb join me in 
introducing this bill, and that our colleague Congressman Cummings has 
introduced this legislation in the House. I hope that we will soon be 
joined by a bipartisan group of Senators who care about helping 
American families to cope with the costs of long term care.
  Mr. President, long term care requires long term solutions. My 
legislation is part of the solution. It is an important step forward in 
helping all Americans to prepare for the challenges of aging.
  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. 57

       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 ``Federal Employees Group 
     Long-Term Care Insurance Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE.

       Subpart G of part III of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:

                 ``Chapter 90--Long-Term Care Insurance

``Sec.
``9001. Definitions
``9002. Contracting authority.
``9003. Minimum standards for contractors.
``9004. Long-term care benefits.
``9005. Financing.
``9006. Preemption.
``9007. Studies, reports, and audits.
``9008. Claims for benefits.
``9009. Jurisdiction of courts.
``9010. Regulations.
``9011. Authorization of appropriations.

     ``Sec. 9001. Definitions

       ``For the purpose of this chapter, the term--
       ``(1) `annuitant' means an individual referred to in 
     section 8901(3);
       ``(2) `employee' means an individual referred to in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D), and (F) through (I) of section 
     8901(1); but does not include an employee excluded by 
     regulation of the Office under section 9011;
       ``(3) `Office' means the Office of Personnel Management;
       ``(4) `other eligible individual' means the spouse, former 
     spouse, parent or parent-in-law of an employee or annuitant, 
     or other individual specified by the Office;
       ``(5) `qualified carrier' means an insurer licensed to do 
     business in each of the States and meeting the requirements 
     of a qualified insurer in each of the States;
       ``(6) `qualified contract' means a contract meeting the 
     conditions prescribed in section 9002; and
       ``(7) `State' means a State or territory or possession of 
     the United States, and includes the District of Columbia.

     ``Sec. 9002. Contracting authority

       ``(a) The Office may, without regard to section 3709 of the 
     Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5) or any other statute requiring 
     competitive bidding, purchase from 1 or more qualified 
     carriers a policy or policies of group long-term care 
     insurance to provide benefits as specified by this chapter. 
     The Office shall ensure that each resulting contract is 
     awarded on the basis of contractor qualifications, price, and 
     reasonable competition to the maximum extent practicable.
       ``(b) The Office may design a benefits package or packages 
     and negotiate final offerings with qualified carriers.
       ``(c) Each contract shall be for a uniform term of 5 years, 
     unless terminated earlier by the Office.
       ``(d) Premium rates charged under a contract entered into 
     under this section shall reasonably reflect the cost of the 
     benefits provided under that contract as determined by the 
     Office.
       ``(e) The coverage and benefits made available to 
     individuals under a contract entered into under this section 
     are guaranteed to be renewable and may not be canceled by the 
     carrier except for nonpayment of premium.
       ``(f) The Office may withdraw an offering under this 
     section based on open season participation rates, the 
     composition of the risk pool, or both.

     ``Sec. 9003. Minimum standards for contractors

       ``At the minimum, to be a qualified carrier under this 
     chapter, a company shall--
       ``(1) be licensed as an insurance company and approved to 
     issue group long-term care insurance in all States and to do 
     business in each of the States; and
       ``(2) be in compliance with the requirements imposed on 
     issuers of qualified long-term care contracts by section 
     4980C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

     ``Sec. 9004. Long-term care benefits

       ``The benefits provided under this chapter shall be long-
     term care benefits which, at a minimum, shall be compliant 
     with the most recent standards recommended by the National 
     Association of Insurance Commissioners.

     ``Sec. 9005. Financing

       ``(a) The amount necessary to pay the premium for 
     enrollment of an enrolled employee shall be withheld from the 
     pay of each enrolled employee.
       ``(b) Except as provided under subsection (d), the amount 
     necessary to pay the premium for enrollment of an enrolled 
     annuitant shall be withheld from the annuity of each enrolled 
     annuitant.
       ``(c) The amount necessary to pay the premium for 
     enrollment of a spouse may be withheld from pay or annuity, 
     as appropriate.
       ``(d) An employee, annuitant, or other eligible individual, 
     whose pay or annuity is insufficient to cover the withholding 
     required for enrollment, shall, at the discretion of the 
     Office, pay the premium for enrollment directly to the 
     carrier.
       ``(e) Each carrier participating in the program established 
     under chapter shall maintain the funds related to this 
     program separate and apart from funds related to other 
     contracts and other lines of business.
       ``(f) The costs of the Office in adjudicating a claims 
     dispute under section 9008, including costs related to an 
     inquiry not culminating in a dispute, shall be reimbursed by 
     the carrier involved in the dispute or inquiry. Such funds 
     shall be available to the Office for the administration of 
     this chapter.

     ``Sec. 9006. Preemption

       ``This chapter shall supersede and preempt any State or 
     local law which is determined by the Office to be 
     inconsistent with--
       ``(1) the provisions of this chapter; or
       ``(2) after consultation with the National Association of 
     Insurance Commissioners, the efficient provision of a 
     nationwide long-term care insurance program for Federal 
     employees.

     ``Sec. 9007. Studies, reports, and audits

       ``(a) Each qualified carrier entering into a contract under 
     this chapter shall--
       ``(1) furnish such reasonable reports as the Office 
     determines to be necessary to enable the carrier to carry out 
     the functions under this chapter; and
       ``(2) permit the Office and representatives of the General 
     Accounting Office to examine such records of the carrier as 
     may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter.
       ``(b) Each Federal agency shall keep such records, make 
     such certifications, and furnish the Office, the carrier, or 
     both, with such information and reports as the Office may 
     require.

     ``Sec. 9008. Claims for benefits

       ``(a) A claim for benefits under this chapter shall be 
     filed within 4 years after the date on which the reimbursable 
     cost was incurred or the service was provided.
       ``(b) The Office shall adjudicate a claims dispute arising 
     under this chapter and shall require the contractor to pay 
     for any benefit or provide any service the Office determines 
     appropriate under the applicable contract.
       ``(c)(1) Except as provided under paragraph (2), benefits 
     payable under this chapter for any reimbursable cost incurred 
     or service provided are secondary to any other benefit 
     payable for such cost or service. No payment may be made 
     where there is no legal obligation for such payment.
       ``(2)(A) Benefits payable under the programs described 
     under subparagraph (B) shall be secondary to benefits payable 
     under this chapter.
       ``(B) The programs referred to under subparagraph (A) are--
       ``(i) the program of medical assistance under title XIX of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396); and
       ``(ii) any other Federal or State programs that the Office 
     may specify in regulations that provide health benefit 
     coverage designed to be secondary to other insurance 
     coverage.

     ``Sec. 9009. Jurisdiction of courts

       ``A claimant under this chapter may file suit against the 
     carrier of the long-term care insurance policy covering such 
     claimant in the district courts of the United States, after 
     exhausting all available administrative remedies.

     ``Sec. 9010. Regulations

       ``(a) The Office shall prescribe regulations necessary to 
     carry out this chapter.
       ``(b) The regulations of the Office may prescribe the time 
     at which and the conditions under which an eligible 
     individual may enroll in the program established under this 
     chapter.
       ``(c) The Office may not exclude--
       ``(1) an employee or group of employees solely on the basis 
     of the hazardous nature of employment; or
       ``(2) an employee who is occupying a position on a part-
     time career employment basis, as defined in section 3401(2).
       ``(d) The regulations of the Office shall provide for the 
     beginning and ending dates of

[[Page 806]]

     coverage of employees, annuitants, former spouses, and other 
     eligible individuals under this chapter, and any requirements 
     for continuation or conversion of coverage.

     ``Sec. 9011. Authorization of appropriations

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary for the purposes of carrying out sections 9002 
     and 9010.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act, except that no coverage may be 
     effective until the first day of the first applicable pay 
     period in October, which occurs more than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 58. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to improve 
protections against telephone service ``slamming'' and provide 
protections against telephone billing ``cramming'', to provide the 
Federal Trade Commission jurisdiction over unfair and deceptive trade 
practices of telecommunications carriers, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


     telephone service fraud prevention and enforcement act of 1999

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Telephone 
Services Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1999.'' I am pleased 
to have Senators Dick Durbin and Jim Jeffords as cosponsors of this 
legislation. This bill is designed to curtail two telephone-related 
fraudulent practices: slamming--the unauthorized change of a consumer's 
long distance telephone service provider--and cramming--the billing of 
unauthorized charges on a consumer's telephone bill. This comprehensive 
bill is needed to ensure that consumers are adequately protected 
against these unfair practices.
  Mr. President, telephone slamming and cramming are widespread 
problems, affecting consumers across the country. Nationwide, slamming 
is the number one telephone-related complaint to the Federal 
Communications Commission, and the number of such complaints has grown 
steadily over the past few years. In 1998, in fact, the FCC received 
more than 20,000 slamming complaints, a 900 percent increase over the 
number of complaints received in 1993. For fiscal year 1998 (from 
October 1, 1997 through September 1, 1998), telephone slamming was the 
number one complaint made by Maine consumers to the FCC's National Call 
Center. Since there is still no central repository for slamming 
complaints, the actual incidents of slamming are undoubtedly far more 
numerous. Estimates from phone companies indicated that perhaps as many 
as one million Americans were slammed last year alone.
  Cramming complaints also remain at unacceptably high levels. In 1998, 
the FCC's National Call Center received over 15,000 cramming complaints 
from consumers, making it the 12th most common complaint received by 
the FCC. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission received over 6,000 
cramming complaints from consumers in 1998, making it the FTC's 5th 
most common complaint. As with slamming, there is no central repository 
for cramming complaints, so the actual number of such complaints is 
probably much higher than those documented by the federal government.
  In late 1997, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 
which I chair, began an extensive investigation into telephone-related 
fraud against consumers. The story of telephone services fraud, I soon 
discovered, is a great deal more than just an aggregate number of 
complaints. On February 18, 1998, I chaired a field hearing on slamming 
in Portland, Maine, where I heard first-hand from consumers about the 
problems they experienced when their long distance service was changed 
without their permission. Their sense of violation was evident. 
Witnesses used words such as ``stealing,'' ``criminal,'' and ``break-
in'' to describe the practices used by unscrupulous telephone companies 
to boost profits by bouncing unsuspecting customers from carrier to 
carrier without their permission or even their knowledge.
  One witness, for example, Pamela Corrigan from West Farmington, 
Maine, testified that she was sent an unsolicited mailing, which looked 
like any other letter in the stacks of junk mail that we all receive 
every day. This ``junk mail,'' however, was not what it appeared to be. 
This so-called ``welcome package'' automatically signed her up for a 
new long distance service unless she returned a card rejecting the 
change. She was amazed and appalled that it was possible for a company 
to take over her long distance service simply because she did not 
respond that she did not want their service.
  Building on this record, my Subcommittee held a second slamming 
hearing on April 23, 1998, in Washington, DC. This hearing exposed how 
certain fraudulent long distance switchless resellers (companies with 
no telephone equipment of their own that buy access to larger telephone 
companies' long distance lines and then ``resell'' that access to 
consumers) are responsible for a large proportion of the intentional 
slamming incidents. These electronic bandits use deceptive marketing 
practices and often outright fraud to switch consumers' long distance 
service. The Subcommittee also learned how under current industry 
practices, many companies reap huge profits by taking advantage of 
consumers in such a fashion.
  At my Subcommittee's April 1998 hearing, we examined a case study of 
telephone services fraud. A man named Daniel Fletcher fraudulently 
operated as a long distance reseller, using at least eight different 
company names. In these various guises, Fletcher slammed thousands of 
consumers, billing them for a total of at least $20 million in long 
distance charges. The impunity with which Mr. Fletcher deliberately 
slammed consumers for so long demonstrates the need to establish strong 
consumer protections to deter intentional slamming.
  On July 23, 1998, I convened a hearing in Washington to explore the 
emerging problem of telephone cramming. At that hearing, we learned how 
cramming is a growing consumer fraud and how companies are using 
telephone bills to rip-off consumers by slipping unauthorized charges 
onto their statements without their consent and without proper notice. 
The National Consumers League testified that cramming has skyrocketed 
to first place among the more than 50 categories of telemarketing scams 
reported to its hotline. The FCC testified that it is relying on the 
telephone industry to voluntarily implement procedures to stop 
cramming. However, it was evident from the testimony that unless we 
establish a clear statutory and regulatory scheme and insist upon 
rigorous enforcement of these rules, cramming will continue to be a 
problem for consumers.
  In May 1998, the Senate passed a strong anti-slamming bill by a 
unanimous vote. This bill contained strong consumer protection 
provisions and mandated aggressive enforcement by the FCC and other 
federal agencies. Unfortunately, the House retreated significantly from 
this strong anti-slamming legislation and sent us, at the very end of 
the legislative session, a bill significantly weaker than the one which 
passed the Senate--indeed, a bill so weak that it would provide 
consumers with less protection than they enjoy today, by preempting the 
important role states play in enforcing consumer anti-fraud 
protections. Last fall, in the final days of the session, the Congress 
was unable to agree to an acceptable compromise bill in the limited 
amount of time available to it.
  I was pleased to see, however, that the FCC finally took action in 
December of last year to curb slamming. Among other measures, the FCC 
eliminated the ``welcome package'' as a verification method. This 
method was abused by many long distance carriers, facilitating 
widespread slamming. I urged the FCC last year to prohibit this 
practice, and I am glad to see that the Commission promulgated 
regulations banning the welcome package.
  The FCC also made positive changes to the consumer liability rules, 
absolving consumers in certain circumstances from paying companies that 
slammed them. This provision is

[[Page 807]]

designed to take the profit out of slamming, to prevent this scam in 
the first place. I am pleased to see that the Commission adopted this 
principle which was a major finding of the Subcommittee's investigation 
of telephone slamming.
  The FCC anti-slamming regulations are a step in the right direction, 
but we need to do more to protect consumers from these fraudulent 
activities. Today, to increase consumers protections, I am introducing 
a comprehensive telephone-related anti-fraud bill that will address 
both the slamming and cramming problems. I want to take this 
opportunity to explain several provisions in my bill, which is designed 
to increase consumer protections and to strengthen the enforcement 
tools available to federal and state regulators.
  First, the bill enhances the states' ability to enact regulations and 
take enforcement actions against slamming and cramming. As the 
Subcommittee's investigation has revealed, the states have been 
admirably aggressive in taking enforcement action against companies 
that engage in telephone-related fraud. For example, in February 1998, 
the Florida Public Service Commission proposed a $500,000 fine against 
a company called Minimum Rate Pricing for slamming subscribers. The 
FCC, in contrast, fined the same company only $80,000. In the Fletcher 
case mentioned previously, the State of Florida fined one Fletcher 
company $860,000, while the FCC originally fined one of them only 
$80,000. I am glad to say that since my subcommittee's investigation, 
the FCC has significantly increased its enforcement efforts, 
particularly against Mr. Fletcher.
  For the most part, however, the states have been, and remain, the 
first line of defense against companies that repeatedly slam or cram 
consumers. This bill protects the states' ability to continue to fight 
those illegal practices. Specifically, this bill allows the states to 
impose tough requirements to protect consumers from those companies who 
continue to slam or cram American consumers. Moreover, states will be 
able to continue to obtain refunds for consumers who have been harmed 
by such fraudulent practices.
  Second, this bill makes it clear that telephone companies that 
continue to slam or cram consumers will be subject to tough civil 
penalties. The bill will create new civil penalties for cramming, and 
authorize the imposition of stiff penalties by the FCC on those 
companies who violate FCC regulations against slamming or cramming. The 
FCC is currently authorized to assess forfeiture penalties of no more 
than $110,000 for each violation, for a total forfeiture not to exceed 
$1.1 million for a continuing violation. This bill sends a clear 
message to the FCC, however, that forfeiture penalties against 
companies that engage in telephone-related fraud should be large enough 
to deter such practices. These and other penalties the FCC will be 
authorized to impose ought to ensure that telephone companies follow 
proper procedures and refrain from slamming and cramming. If they break 
the rules by trying to cheat consumers, they will pay a steep price.
  But prevention is better than punishment, and any effective 
enforcement program designed to reduce or eliminate telephone-related 
fraud must take the financial incentive for fraud away from companies 
who engage in these practices. The new FCC regulations go a long way to 
protecting consumers by absolving them from paying any charges for 30 
days after they are slammed and by allowing consumers to pay their 
previously authorized carrier for telephone calls made in the period 
during which the slamming company fraudulently seized their long 
distance telephone service. Unfortunately, this FCC regulation does not 
apply to consumers who did not notice that they were slammed and 
consequently paid this long distance bill to the unauthorized carrier. 
The Commission apparently does not have the authority to mandate this 
requirement. My bill would change the law to allow all consumers to get 
refunds from unauthorized carriers. Under this plan, all consumers will 
be treated equally. The bill will also require telephone billing agents 
to make it clear to consumers that their telephone service will not be 
terminated when consumers dispute unauthorized charges that are crammed 
onto their telephone bills.
  Finally, the bill will protect a consumer's right to a ``freeze 
option.'' This provision makes it clear that consumers have the right 
to stop slammers from changing their long distance service without 
their authorization. By invoking the freeze option, consumers can 
retain control over their telephone service by prohibiting any change 
in a consumers choice of telephone service provider, unless that change 
is expressly authorized by the consumer. This provision, I should also 
note, does not in any way prevent the FCC from regulating the marketing 
practices of telephone companies that use the freeze option in an 
unfair or deceptive manner. The Commission will be fully empowered to 
guarantee that consumers' right to protect their choice of local or 
long distance telephone service is not abridged or diminished. In sum, 
this language should increase consumers' right to prevent unauthorized 
changes in their telephone service.
  This bill will go a long way to provide strong consumer protection 
against telephone-related fraud. It preserves the important role states 
play in protecting consumers and enforcing tough sanctions against 
unscrupulous carriers; it authorizes tough federal civil penalties 
against those companies that continue to slam and cram consumers; and 
it protects consumers' right to a freeze option so that they--and not 
the telephone companies--have control over their long distance 
services.
  Mr. President, this bill will provide the federal government and the 
states with the statutory tools to fight the practices of slamming and 
cramming and to end the systematic defrauding of countless thousands of 
consumers every year. I urge my colleagues to join me in the fight 
against telephone-related fraud by supporting this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself, Mr. Breaux,  and Mr. Lott):
  S. 59. A bill to provide Government wide accounting of regulatory 
costs and benefits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


                  REGULATORY RIGHT TO KNOW ACT OF 1999

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Regulatory 
Right-to-Know Act of 1999.'' I am pleased that Senator Breaux and 
Majority Leader Lott have joined me in this effort. Our goals are to 
promote the public's right to know about the benefits and costs of 
regulatory programs; to increase the accountability of government to 
the people it serves; and ultimately, to improve the quality of our 
regulatory programs. This legislation will help us assess what benefits 
our regulatory programs are delivering, at what cost, and help us 
understand what we need to do to improve them.
  By any measure, the burdens of Federal regulation are enormous. By 
some estimates, Federal regulation costs about $700 billion per year, 
or $7,000 for the average American household. I hear concerns about 
unnecessary regulatory burdens and red tape from people all across the 
country and from all walks of life--small business owners, governors 
and local officials, farmers, corporate leaders, government reformers, 
school board members and parents.
  There is strong public support for sensible regulations that can help 
ensure cleaner water, quality products, safer workplaces, reliable 
economic markets, and the like. But there is substantial evidence that 
the current regulatory system is missing important opportunities to 
deliver greater benefits at less cost. The depth of this problem is not 
appreciated fully because the costs of regulation are not as apparent 
as other costs of government, such as taxes, and the benefits of 
regulation often are diffuse. The bottom line is that the American 
people deserve better results from the vast resources and time spent on 
regulation. We've got to be smarter.
  We often spend a lot of time debating on-budget programs, but we are 
just

[[Page 808]]

breaking ground on creating a system to scrutinize Federal regulation. 
This legislation does not change any regulatory standards; it simply 
will provide better information to help us answer some important 
questions: How much do regulatory programs cost each year? Are we 
spending the right amount, particularly compared to on-budget spending 
and private initiatives? Are we setting sensible priorities among 
different regulatory programs? As the Office of Management and Budget 
stated in its first ``Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of 
Federal Regulations'':

       [R]egulations (like other instruments of government policy) 
     have enormous potential for both good and harm. . . . The 
     only way we know how to distinguish between the regulations 
     that do good and those that cause harm is through careful 
     assessment and evaluation of their benefits and costs. Such 
     analysis can also often be used to redesign harmful 
     regulations so they produce more good than harm and redesign 
     good regulations so they produce even more net benefits.

  There is broad support for making our government more open, 
efficient, and accountable. This legislation continues the efforts of 
my precedessors. Regulatory accounting was a part of a regulatory 
reform bill that unanimously passed out of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee in 1995 when Bill Roth was our chairman. In 1996, when Ted 
Stevens became our chairman, he passed a one-time regulatory accounting 
amendment on the Omnibus Appropriations Act. I supported Senator 
Stevens' effort when it passed again in 1997, and I sponsored a similar 
measure last year, with the support of Senators Lott, Breaux, Robb and 
Shelby. There also is a broad bipartisan coalition in the House that 
supports regulatory accounting.
  This legislation will continue the requirement that OMB report to 
Congress on the costs and benefits of regulatory programs, which began 
with the Stevens amendment. This legislation also adds to previous 
initiatives in several respects. First, it will finally make regulatory 
accounting a permanent statutory requirement. Regulatory accounting 
will become a regular exercise to help ensure that regulatory programs 
are cost-effective, sensible, and fair. Second, this legislation will 
require OMB to provide a more complete picture of the regulatory 
system, including the incremental costs and benefits of particular 
programs and regulations, as well as an analysis of regulatory impacts 
on small business, governments, the private sector, wages and economic 
growth. OMB also will look back at the annual regulatory costs and 
benefits for the preceding 4 fiscal years, building on information 
generated under the Stevens amendment. Finally, this legislation will 
help ensure that OMB provides better information as time goes on. 
Requirements for OMB guidelines and independent peer review should 
improve future regulatory accounting reports.
  Government has an obligation to think carefully and be accountable 
for requirements that impose costs on people and limit their freedom. 
We should pull together to contribute to the success of responsible 
government programs the public values, while enhancing the economic 
security and well-being of our families and communities.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Regulatory 
Right-to-Know Act of 1999 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 59

       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 ``Regulatory Right-to-Know Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) promote the public right-to-know about the costs and 
     benefits of Federal regulatory programs and rules;
       (2) increase Government accountability; and
       (3) improve the quality of Federal regulatory programs and 
     rules.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, the definitions under section 551 of title 5, United 
     States Code, shall apply to this Act.
       (2) Benefit.--The term ``benefit'' means the reasonably 
     identifiable significant favorable effects, quantifiable and 
     nonquantifiable, including social, health, safety, 
     environmental, economic, and distributional effects, that are 
     expected to result from implementation of, or compliance 
     with, a rule.
       (3) Cost.--The term ``cost'' means the reasonably 
     identifiable significant adverse effects, quantifiable and 
     nonquantifiable, including social, health, safety, 
     environmental, economic, and distributional effects, that are 
     expected to result from implementation of, or compliance 
     with, a rule.
       (4) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs.
       (5) Major rule.--The term ``major rule'' means any rule as 
     that term is defined under section 804(2) of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (6) Program element.--The term ``program element'' means a 
     rule or related set of rules.

     SEC. 4. ACCOUNTING STATEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than February 5, 2001, and each 
     year thereafter, the President, acting through the Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget, shall prepare and 
     submit to Congress, with the budget of the United States 
     Government submitted under section 1105 of title 31, United 
     States Code, an accounting statement and associated report 
     containing--
       (1) an estimate of the total annual costs and benefits of 
     Federal regulatory programs, including rules and paperwork--
       (A) in the aggregate;
       (B) by agency, agency program, and program element; and
       (C) by major rule;
       (2) an analysis of direct and indirect impacts of Federal 
     rules on Federal, State, local, and tribal government, the 
     private sector, small business, wages, and economic growth; 
     and
       (3) recommendations to reform inefficient or ineffective 
     regulatory programs or program elements.
       (b) Benefits and Costs.--To the extent feasible, the 
     Director shall quantify the net benefits or net costs under 
     subsection (a)(1).
       (c) Years Covered by Accounting Statement.--Each accounting 
     statement submitted under this Act shall cover, at a minimum, 
     the costs and corresponding benefits for each of the 4 fiscal 
     years preceding the year in which the report is submitted. 
     The statement may cover any year preceding such years for the 
     purpose of revising previous estimates.

     SEC. 5. NOTICE AND COMMENT.

       (a) In General.--Before submitting a statement and report 
     to Congress under section 4, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall--
       (1) provide public notice and an opportunity to comment on 
     the statement and report; and
       (2) consult with the Comptroller General of the United 
     States on the statement and report.
       (b) Appendix.--After consideration of the comments, the 
     Director shall incorporate an appendix to the report 
     addressing the public comments and peer review comments under 
     section 7.

     SEC. 6. GUIDANCE FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, in consultation with the Council of 
     Economic Advisors, shall issue guidelines to agencies to 
     standardize--
       (1) most plausible measures of costs and benefits; and
       (2) the format of information provided for accounting 
     statements.
       (b) Review.--The Director shall review submissions from the 
     agencies to ensure consistency with the guidelines under this 
     section.

     SEC. 7. PEER REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall arrange for a nationally recognized public 
     policy research organization with expertise in regulatory 
     analysis and regulatory accounting to provide independent and 
     external peer review of the guidelines and each accounting 
     statement and associated report under this Act before such 
     guidelines, statements, and reports are made final.
       (b) Written Comments.--The peer review under this section 
     shall provide written comments to the Director in a timely 
     manner. The Director shall use the peer review comments in 
     preparing the final guidelines, statements, and associated 
     reports.
       (c) FACA.--Peer review under this section shall not be 
     subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
     App.).

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Regulatory 
Right to Know Act of 1999 with my colleague, Senator Thompson. This 
important piece of legislation will make the regulatory system more 
understandable and accountable to the American people.
  The Regulatory Right to Know Act of 1999 is similar to an amendment 
that was attached to the Fiscal Year 1999 Treasury, Postal 
Appropriations bill and which the Senate unanimously

[[Page 809]]

passed on July 29, 1998. It is also similar to the two Stevens' 
Amendments passed with a large majority of support in the Senate in 
1996 and 1997. All of these amendments required the Office of 
Management and Budget to prepare an accounting statement and report on 
the annual costs and benefits of federal regulatory programs. 
Obviously, Congress is on record in support of having more information 
about the federal regulatory system.
  The Regulatory Right to Know Act of 1999 simply makes this 
requirement permanent and requires OMB to submit a yearly report to 
Congress on the total costs and benefits of federal regulations. Costs 
and benefits include those that are both quantifiable and non-
quantifiable. OMB must present both an analysis of the impacts of 
regulations on Federal, State, local and tribal governments, the 
private sector, small businesses, wages and economic growth, as well as 
recommendations for reforming wasteful or outdated regulations. Lastly, 
our bill provides the public with an opportunity to comment on the 
draft report before it is submitted to Congress.
  Our bill does not do a number of things. It does not require that any 
regulations or programs be eliminated because the benefits do not 
outweigh the costs. It does not impose an unworkable burden on the OMB 
because much of the needed information is already available. And, our 
bill doesn't undermine the need for regulations protecting public 
health, worker safety, food quality or environmental preservation.
  Some studies have estimated the total cost of federal regulations to 
be almost $700 billion annually. On average, regulations cost every 
household in America approximately $7,000 per year. As the people who 
bear the cost of federal regulatory programs, America's citizens have a 
right to know what they are getting for their $7,000. Taxpayers are 
able to track how the government spends its tax dollars through the 
budget process. The same openness should apply to the federal 
regulatory system. Congress also needs the accounting statements 
provided by our bill in order to make better, more informed, and more 
efficient decisions. For these reasons. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support the Regulatory Right to Know Act of 1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 60. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
equitable treatment for contributions by employees to pension plans; to 
the Committee on Finance.


                   ENHANCED SAVINGS OPPORTUNITIES ACT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that lifts the unfair limits on how much people can save in their 
employer's pension plan. I have been an advocate of increasing the 
amount of public education we provide to people on the importance of 
saving for retirement. However, we also must take more tangible action 
that will help workers achieve a more secure retirement.
  The legislation I am introducing today amends two provisions in the 
Internal Revenue Code which discourage workers and employers from 
putting money into pension plans. One of the most burdensome provisions 
in the Internal Revenue Code is the 25 percent limitation contained 
within section 415(c). Under 415(c), total contributions by employer 
and employee into a defined contribution (DC) plan are limited to 25 
percent of compensation or $30,000 for each participant, whichever is 
less. That limitation applies to all employees. If the total additions 
into a DC plan exceed the lesser of 25 percent or $30,000, the excess 
money will be subject to income taxes and a penalty in some cases.
  The second tax code provision affected by this legislation is section 
404(a)(3). This section regulates the amount of retirement plan 
contributions an employer can deduct for tax purposes. We need this 
change because those deduction limits are impacted by how much the 
employee puts into the retirement plan. If we are successful in 
changing 415(c), we run the risk of more employers bumping into the 15% 
deduction limit--we don't want that to happen.
  To illustrate the need for elimination of the 25 percent limit let me 
use an example. Bill works for a medium size company in my home state 
of Iowa. His employer sponsors a 401(k) plan and a profit sharing plan 
to help employees save for retirement. Bill makes $25,000 a year and 
elects to put in 10 percent of his compensation into the 401(k) plan, 
which amounts to $2,500 per year. His employer will match the first 5 
percent of his compensation, which comes out to be $1,250, into the 
401(k) plan. Therefore, the total 401(k) contribution into Bill's 
account in this year is $3,750. In this same year Bill' s employer 
determines to set aside a sufficient amount of his profits to the 
profit sharing plan which results in an allocation to Bill's account in 
the profit sharing plan the sum of $3,205. This brings the total 
contribution into Bill's retirement plan this year up to $6,955.
  Unfortunately, because of the 25 percent of compensation limitation 
only $6,250 can be put into Bill's account for the year. The amount 
intended for Bill's account exceeds that limitation by $705. Hence, the 
profit sharing plan administrator must reduce the amount intended for 
allocation to Bill's account by $705 in order to avoid a penalty. Bill 
is unlikely to be able to save $705, a significant amount that would 
otherwise be yielding a tax deferred income which would increase the 
benefit Bill will receive at retirement. Bill's retirement saving is 
shortchanged by $705 plus the tax-deferred earnings it would have 
generated.
  Now let's look at Irene. Irene works for the same company, but she 
makes $45,000 a year. She also puts in 10 percent of her compensation 
into the 401(k) plan, and her employer matches five percent of her 
salary into the account. That brings the combined contribution of Irene 
and her employer up to $6,750. She would also receive a contribution of 
$3,205 from the profit sharing plan. This brings the total contribution 
into Irene's pension plan for that year to $9,955. She is also subject 
to the 25 percent limit, but for Irene, her limit would not be reached 
until $11,200. She is able to put in her 10 percent, receive the five 
percent match and receive the full amount from the profit share because 
her amount doesn't exceed the limit.
  Despite the fact that Bill and Irene have the same discipline to add 
to their pension plans and save for their retirements, Bill is 
penalized by the 25 percent limitation. By lifting the 25 percent 
limit, we can provide a higher threshold of savings for those who need 
it most.
  Permitting additional contributions to DC plans will help those 
working now, particularly women, to ``catch up'' on their retirement 
savings goals. Women are more likely to live out the last years of 
their retirement in poverty for a number of reasons. Women have longer 
lifespans, they are more likely to leave the workforce to raise 
children or care for elderly parents, are more likely to have to use 
assets to pay for long-term care for an ill spouse, and traditionally 
make less money than their male counterparts. Anyone who has delayed 
saving for retirement will get a much needed boost to their retirement 
savings strategy if the 25 percent limit is eliminated for employees.
  Not only does this proposal help individual employees save for 
retirement but it also helps the many businesses, both small and large 
which are affected by 415(c). First, the 25 percent limitation causes 
equity concerns within businesses. Low and mid-salary workers do not 
feel as if the Code treats them equitably, when their higher-paid 
supervisor is permitted to save more in dollar terms in a tax-qualified 
pension plan.
  Second, one of the primary reasons businesses offer pension plans is 
to reduce turnover and retain employees. Employers often supplement 
their 401(k) plans with generous matches or a profit-sharing plan to 
keep people on the job. The 415(c) limitation inhibits their ability to 
do that, particularly for the lower-paid workers who are unfairly 
affected.
  Third, this legislation will ease the administrative burdens 
connected with the 25 percent limitation. Dollar limits

[[Page 810]]

are easier to track than percentage limits.
  Finally, I want to placate any concerns that repealing the 25 percent 
limit will serve as a windfall for high-paid employees. The Code 
contains other limitations which provide protection against abuse. 
First, the Code limits the amount an employee can defer to a 401(k) 
plan. Under section 402(g) of the Code, workers can only defer up to 
$10,000 of compensation into a 401(k) plan in 1998. In addition, plans 
still must meet strict non-discrimination rules that ensure that 
benefits provided to highly-compensated employees are not overly 
generous.
  The value to society of this proposal, if enacted, is undeniable. 
Increased savings in qualified retirement plans can prevent leakage, 
meaning the money is less likely to be spent, or cashed out as might 
happen in a savings account or even an IRA.
  There will be those out there who recognize that this bill does not 
address the impact of the 415 limit for all of the plans that are 
subject to it. I have included language that would provide relief to 
401(k) plans and 403(b) plans, for example. Plans authorized by section 
457 of the Code--used by state and local governments and non-profit 
organizations have not been specifically addressed. I want to assure 
organizations who sponsor 457 plans that I support ultimate conformity 
for all plans affected by the 415(c) percentage limitation. Over the 
next couple of weeks, I hope to work with these organizations to 
identify the changes that are necessary to achieve equity and 
simplicity for their employees. In the mean time, this is a positive 
step toward enhancing the retirement savings opportunities of working 
Americans.
  We have begun to educate all Americans about the importance of saving 
for retirement, but if we educate and then do not give them the tools 
to allow people to practically apply that knowledge, we have failed in 
our ultimate goal to increase national savings. Let's help Americans 
succeed in saving for retirement. In helping them achieve their 
retirement goals, they help us to achieve our goal as policymakers of 
improving the quality of life for Americans.
  I want to thank an Iowa company, IPSCO, in Camanche, Iowa, and its 
many employees for bringing this issue to the forefront. I would also 
ask unanimous consent that a letter supporting this legislation from 
the Profit Sharing Council of America be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                             Profit Sharing/401(k)


                                           Council of America,

                                    Chicago, IL, January 19, 1999.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Grassley: On behalf of the 1,200 Profit 
     Sharing/401(k) Council of America members who sponsor 
     employer-provided retirement plans, I am pleased to announce 
     our strong support of The Enhanced Savings Opportunity Act, 
     introduced today, that would repeal the IRC section 415(c) 25 
     percent of compensation limit currently imposed on employees 
     participating in defined contribution plans. That limitation 
     caps the combined employee and employer contribution into a 
     401(k) account to 25 percent of an employee's earnings. The 
     25 percent limitation has significantly reduced the ability 
     of lower-paid employees, specifically intermittent workers, 
     from taking full advantage of defined contribution retirement 
     programs. Most companies limit the percentage of pay that an 
     employee can contribute to their 401(k) plan to even less 
     than 25 percent in order to insure compliance with 415(c).
       The legislation will promote a conducive environment for 
     expanding the savings opportunities in employer-provided 
     retirement programs by removing one of the impediments that 
     prevents employees, especially lower-paid employees, from 
     taking full advantage of profit sharing, 401(k), and other 
     defined contribution programs.
       The Enhanced Savings Opportunity Act will permit employees 
     who leave and reenter the workforce, many of whom are women, 
     to make larger contributions when they are working, in effect 
     allowing them to ``catch up'' their contributions. All low-
     paid employees will now be allowed to defer up to $10,000 of 
     their wages into a 401(k) plan. Also, companies will be 
     permitted to make more generous matching and profit sharing 
     contributions to their employees, especially their lower-paid 
     employees.
       We continue to benefit from your strong leadership in 
     support of employer-provided retirement plans and again 
     commend you for this new proposed legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    David L. Wray,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
        Santorum, Mr. Specter, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. 
        Voinovich):
  S. 61. A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to eliminate 
disincentives to fair trade conditions; to the Committee on Finance.


           The Continued Dumping or Subsidization Offset Act

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join with Senators Abraham, 
Santorum, Specter, Hollings, Byrd, Hutchinson and others to introduce 
the Continued Dumping or Subsidy Offset Act. This legislation is 
designed to ensure that our domestic producers can compete freely and 
fairly in global markets. This bill is a top priority for me and my 
fellow cosponsors--not only because we believe it is good policy, but 
also because it is needed to respond to the current import dumping 
crisis in our steel industry.
  As my colleagues know, the Tariff Act of 1930 gives the President the 
authority to impose duties and fines on imports that are being dumped 
in U.S. markets, or subsidized by foreign governments. Our bill would 
take the 1930 Act one step further. Currently, revenues raised through 
import duties and fines go to the U.S. Treasury. Under our bill, duties 
and fines would be transferred to injured U.S. companies as 
compensation for damages caused by dumping or subsidization.
  We believe this extra step is necessary. Current law simply has not 
been strong enough to deter unfair trading practices. In some cases, 
foreign producers are willing to risk the threat of paying U.S. 
antidumping and countervailing duties out of the profits of dumping.
  Current law also does not contain a mechanism to help injured U.S. 
industries recover from the harmful effects of foreign dumping and 
subsidization. These foreign practices have reduced the ability of our 
injured domestic industries to reinvest in plant, equipment, people, 
R&D, technology or to maintain or restore health care and pension 
benefits. The end result is this: continued dumping or subsidization 
jeopardizes renewed investment and prevents additional reinvestment 
from being made.
  The current steel dumping crisis is the latest sobering example of 
why our legislation, among others, is needed to better enforce fair 
trade. Because of massive dumping, steel imports are at an all-time 
high. According to the American Iron and Steel Institute, 4.1 net tons 
of steel were imported in the month of October--that's the second 
highest monthly total ever, and is 56% higher than the previous year.
  This surge in imports is having a direct impact on our own steel 
industry. In November, U.S. steel mills shipped nearly 7.4 million net 
tons of steel in November of last year--more than one million tons 
below what was shipped one year earlier. We have seen U.S. steel's 
industrial utilization rate fall from 93.1% in March of 1998 to 73.9% 
in January of 1999. And most troubling of all, approximately 10,000 
jobs have been lost in our steel industry since last year. More layoffs 
are certain. Whether these jobs will ever be restored is uncertain. 
This is a genuine crisis for the communities in the Ohio River Valley 
and in other communities across the country.
  This is not a case of being on the wrong side of a highly competitive 
market. Today's U.S. steel industry is a lean, efficient industry--a 
world leader thanks to restructuring and millions of dollars in 
modernization. U.S. steelworkers are the best and most productive in 
the world. In fact, America's workers devote the fewest manpower hours 
per ton of steel.
  Simply being the best is not enough against foreign governments that 
either erect barriers to keep U.S. steel

[[Page 811]]

out, or subsidize their exports to distort prices. That's why we have 
trade laws designed to promote fair trade. However, it's clear that our 
current trade policies aren't working. Current law did not deter 
foreign steel producers from dumping their products in our country. 
These foreign producers have done the math. They have made a calculated 
decision that the risk of duties is a price they are willing to pay in 
return for the higher global market share they have gained by chipping 
away at the size and strength of our nation's steel industry.
  It's time we impose a heavier price on dumping and subsidization. The 
Continued Dumping or Subsidization Offset Act would accomplish this 
goal. It would transfer the duties and fines imposed on foreign 
producers directly to their U.S. competitors. Under our bill, foreign 
steel producers would get a double hit from dumping: they would have to 
pay a duty, and in turn, see that duty go directly to aid U.S. steel 
producers.
  In order to counter the adverse effects of foreign dumping and 
subsidization on U.S. industries, Congress should pass this bipartisan 
bill.
  The steel crisis also has amplified the need for additional 
improvements in our trade laws, as well as tougher enforcement of 
existing laws. Last October, many of us in Congress came together to 
offer an early New Year's resolution for 1999: to stand up for steel.
  Any crisis requires leadership. That's why Congress asked the 
President to make a New Year's Resolution of his own--one that would 
honor a pledge he made in 1992 to strongly enforce U.S. antidumping 
laws. Specifically, Congress asked the President for an action plan no 
later than January 5th--a plan that would end the distortion and 
disruption in global steel markets, as well as the disappearance of 
jobs and opportunity in U.S. steel plants. It was a call for 
presidential leadership.
  On January 8th, the President released a plan that fell far short of 
what we hoped. It was a plan that showed a reluctance to fully utilize 
our laws to ensure free and fair trade. It did not recommend any trade 
legislation to better protect U.S. industry from dumping. As a result, 
it sends a dangerous signal to foreign governments that dumping will 
not meet with a swift response from the United States.
  I am concerned the President has not fully grasped the magnitude of 
this problem. In the past few months, I have visited with Ohio Valley 
steel producers and workers, including a number of the hundreds laid 
off because of foreign dumping. Their message was the same: the surge 
in steel imports represents a crisis of historic proportions.

       The root of the current import crisis is the financial 
     distress that plagues Asia and Russia, which has created a 
     worldwide oversupply of steel. While foreign consumption of 
     steel has nearly dried up, America's strong economy and open 
     markets have made the United States a prime target for 
     exporters. We are dedicated to assisting these economies--so 
     we can avoid a global downturn. But turning a blind eye 
     toward our steel workers is the wrong way to do it. We simply 
     cannot afford to sacrifice the US steel industry and 
     thousands of American jobs in a desperate attempt to prop up 
     faulty foreign economies. This approach simply will not work.

  Although the Commerce Department has initiated an investigation that 
could result in duties imposed against foreign steel, the President 
could pursue a number of options to reduce steel imports: He could 
begin serious and aggressive bilateral negotiations with countries that 
dump steel; initiate a ``201'' petition with the International Trade 
Commission if he believes steel imports pose a substantial threat to 
domestic industry; or take unilateral trade action, including quotas 
and tariffs, under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act.
  The President's plan does not take any of these options. Instead, it 
treats the symptoms of dumping--declining profits and unemployment--
rather than attack the disease itself. The damage from this disease has 
already been done. Absent tough action to address this dumping directly 
makes it more difficult for U.S. producers to regain their declining 
market share, and most important, to restore the jobs that have been 
lost.
  Congress can insist on tough action by the President by passing 
legislation that will further discourage unfair trade practices. 
Passing the Continued Dumping or Subsidization Offset Act would be a 
good start. In addition, I will be joining with Senator Arlen Specter 
of Pennsylvania to introduce legislation that would lower the statutory 
threshold for the International Trade Commission (ITC) to find injury 
caused by imports and establish a steel import permit and licensing 
program, allowing domestic industry access to critical import data more 
quickly.
  Ultimately, we cannot achieve free and fair markets on a global scale 
unless our laws work to encourage all competitors to play by the rules. 
And ultimately, congressional action alone is no substitute for 
presidential leadership. That's why Congress and the American steel 
community need to keep the pressure on. In fact, thousands of steel 
workers from the Ohio Valley are arriving in our nation's capitol in a 
massive call for presidential leadership. It's time our President took 
a stand for fair trade. It's time for our President to stand up for 
steel.
  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. 61

       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 ``Continued Dumping and 
     Subsidy Offset Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS OF CONGRESS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Consistent with the rights of the United States under 
     the World Trade Organization, injurious dumping is to be 
     condemned and actionable subsidies which cause injury to 
     domestic industries must be effectively neutralized.
       (2) United States unfair trade laws have as their purpose 
     the restoration of conditions of fair trade so that jobs and 
     investment that should be in the United States are not lost 
     through the false market signals.
       (3) The continued dumping or subsidization of imported 
     products after the issuance of antidumping orders or findings 
     or countervailing duty orders can frustrate the remedial 
     purpose of the laws by preventing market prices from 
     returning to fair levels.
       (4) Where dumping or subsidization continues, domestic 
     producers will be reluctant to reinvest or rehire and may be 
     unable to maintain pension and health care benefits that 
     conditions of fair trade would permit. Similarly, small 
     businesses and American farmers and ranchers may be unable to 
     pay down accumulated debt, to obtain working capital, or to 
     otherwise remain viable.
       (5) United States trade laws should be strengthened to see 
     that the remedial purpose of those laws is achieved.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930.

       (a) In General.--Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1671 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     753 following new section:

     ``SEC. 754. CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET.

       ``(a) In General.--Duties assessed pursuant to a 
     countervailing duty order, an antidumping duty order, or a 
     finding under the Antidumping Act of 1921 shall be 
     distributed on an annual basis under this section to the 
     affected domestic producers for qualifying expenditures. Such 
     distribution shall be known as the `continued dumping and 
     subsidy offset'.
       ``(d) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) Affected domestic producer.--The term `affected 
     domestic producer' means any manufacturer, producer, farmer, 
     rancher, or worker representative (including associations of 
     such persons) that--
       ``(A) was a petitioner or interested party in support of 
     the petition with respect to which an antidumping duty order, 
     a finding under the Antidumping Act of 1921, or a 
     countervailing duty order has been entered, and
       ``(B) remains in operation.

     Companies, businesses, or persons that have ceased the 
     production of the product covered by the order or finding or 
     who have been acquired by a company or business that is 
     related to a company that opposed the investigation shall not 
     be an affected domestic producer.
       ``(2) Commissioner.--The term `Commissioner' means the 
     Commissioner of Customs.
       ``(3) Commission.--The term `Commission' means the United 
     States International Trade Commission.

[[Page 812]]

       ``(4) Qualifying expenditure.--The term `qualifying 
     expenditure' means an expenditure incurred after the issuance 
     of the antidumping duty finding or order or countervailing 
     duty order in any of the following categories:
       ``(A) Plant.
       ``(B) Equipment.
       ``(C) Research and development.
       ``(D) Personnel training.
       ``(E) Acquisition of technology.
       ``(F) Health care benefits to employees paid for by the 
     employer.
       ``(G) Pension benefits to employees paid for by the 
     employer.
       ``(H) Environmental equipment, training, or technology.
       ``(I) Acquisition of raw materials and other inputs.
       ``(J) Borrowed working capital or other funds needed to 
     maintain production.
       ``(5) Related to.--A company, business, or person shall be 
     considered to be `related to' another company, business, or 
     person if--
       ``(A) the company, business, or person directly or 
     indirectly controls or is controlled by the other company, 
     business, or person,
       ``(B) a third party directly or indirectly controls both 
     companies, businesses, or persons,
       ``(C) both companies, businesses, or persons directly or 
     indirectly control a third party and there is reason to 
     believe that the relationship causes the first company, 
     business, or persons to act differently than a nonrelated 
     party.

     For purposes of this paragraph, a party shall be considered 
     to directly or indirectly control another party if the party 
     is legally or operationally in a position to exercise 
     restraint or direction over the other party.
       ``(c) Distribution Procedures.--The Commissioner shall 
     prescribe procedures for distribution of the continued 
     dumping or subsidies offset required by this section. Such 
     distribution shall be made not later than 60 days after the 
     first day of a fiscal year from duties assessed during the 
     preceding fiscal year.
       ``(d) Parties Eligible for Distribution of Antidumping and 
     Countervailing Duties Assessed.--
       ``(1) List of affected domestic producers.--The Commission 
     shall forward to the Commissioner within 60 days after the 
     effective date of this section in the case of orders or 
     findings in effect on such effective date, or in any other 
     case, within 60 days after the date an antidumping or 
     countervailing duty order or finding is issued, a list of 
     petitioners and persons with respect to each order and 
     finding and a list of persons that indicate support of the 
     petition by letter or through questionnaire response. In 
     those cases in which a determination of injury was not 
     required or the Commission's records do not permit an 
     identification of those in support of a petition, the 
     Commission shall consult with the administering authority to 
     determine the identity of the petitioner and those domestic 
     parties who have entered appearances during administrative 
     reviews conducted by the administering authority under 
     section 751.
       ``(2) Publication of list; certification.--The Commissioner 
     shall publish in the Federal Register at least 30 days before 
     the distribution of a continued dumping and subsidy offset, a 
     notice of intention to distribute the offset and the list of 
     affected domestic producers potentially eligible for the 
     distribution based on the list obtained from the Commission 
     under paragraph (1). The Commissioner shall request a 
     certification from each potentially eligible affected 
     domestic producer--
       ``(A) that the producer desires to receive a distribution;
       ``(B) that the producer is eligible to receive the 
     distribution as an affected domestic producer; and
       ``(C) the qualifying expenditures incurred by the producer 
     since the issuance of the order or finding for which 
     distribution under this section has not previously been made.
       ``(3) Distribution of funds.--The Commissioner shall 
     distribute all funds (including all interest earned on the 
     funds) from assessed duties received in the preceding fiscal 
     year to affected domestic producers based on the 
     certifications described in paragraph (2). The distributions 
     shall be made on a pro rata basis based on new and remaining 
     qualifying expenditures.
       ``(e) Special Accounts.--
       ``(1) Establishments.--Within 14 days after the effective 
     date of this section, with respect to antidumping duty orders 
     and findings and countervailing duty orders in effect on the 
     effective date of this section, and within 14 days after the 
     date an antidumping duty order or finding or countervailing 
     duty order issued after the effective date takes effect, the 
     Commissioner shall establish in the Treasury of the United 
     States a special account with respect to each such order or 
     finding.
       ``(2) Deposits into accounts.--The Commissioner shall 
     deposit into the special accounts, all antidumping or 
     countervailing duties (including interest earned on such 
     duties) that are assessed after the effective date of this 
     section under the antidumping order or finding or the 
     countervailing duty order with respect to which the account 
     was established.
       ``(3) Time and manner of distributions.--Consistent with 
     the requirements of subsections (c) and (d), the Commissioner 
     shall by regulation prescribe the time and manner in which 
     distribution of the funds in a special account shall be made.
       ``(4) Termination.--A special account shall terminate 
     after--
       ``(A) the order or finding with respect to which the 
     account was established has terminated;
       ``(B) all entries relating to the order or finding are 
     liquidated and duties assessed collected;
       ``(C) the Commissioner has provided notice and a final 
     opportunity to obtain distribution pursuant to subsection 
     (c); and
       ``(D) 90 days has elapsed from the date of the notice 
     described in subparagraph (C).

     Amounts not claimed within 90 days of the date of the notice 
     described in subparagraph (C), shall be deposited into the 
     general fund of the Treasury.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for title 
     VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 is amended by inserting the 
     following new item after the item relating to section 753:

``Sec. 754. Continued dumping and subsidy offset.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to all antidumping and 
     countervailing duty assessments made on or after October 1, 
     1996.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 62. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for the rollover of gain from the sale of farm assets into an 
individual retirement account; to the Committee on Finance.


             the family farm retirement equity act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 63. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 
credit against tax for employers who provide child care assistance for 
dependents of their employees, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Finance.


                   the child care infrastructure act

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family Farm 
Retirement Equity Act, a bill to help improve the retirement security 
of our nation's farmers.
  As we begin the 106th Congress, we can anticipate legislative action 
to strengthen retirement security and to boost individual savings on 
behalf of all Americans. With good reason, these issues have risen to 
the top of the nation's agenda. Americans are living longer and 
changing jobs more often. Medical costs are rising and demographic 
trends are undermining the long-term viability of our Social Security 
System. Comprehensive planning for the many years Americans are often 
able to enjoy in retirement is now more important than ever.
  We took some steps to address retirement security in the 105th 
Congress, but the job is far from accomplished. We must be vigilant in 
acting to reform Social Security on behalf of all Americans and in 
addressing the unique retirement needs of individual groups of 
Americans. The legislation I introduce today attempts to act on behalf 
of one such group, a group at the heart of our American traditions, the 
family farmer.
  As many of my colleagues know, farming is a highly capital-intensive 
business. To the extent that the average farmer reaps any profits from 
his or her farming operation, much of that income is directly 
reinvested into the farm. Rarely are there opportunities for farmers to 
put money aside in individual retirement accounts. In addition, as 
self-employed business people, farmers do not have access to the 
pension or retirement funds that many Americans enjoy. When the time 
comes, farmers tend to rely on the sale of their accumulated capital 
assets, such as real estate, livestock, and machinery, in order to 
provide the income to sustain them during retirement. However, all too 
often, farmers are finding that the lump-sum payments of capital gains 
taxes levied on those assets leave little for retirement.
  To alleviate this predicament, my legislation would provide retiring 
farmers the opportunity to rollover the proceeds from the sale of their 
farms into a tax-deferred retirement account. Instead of paying a large 
lump-sum capital gains tax at the point of sale, the income from the 
sale of a farm would be taxed only as it is withdrawn

[[Page 813]]

from the retirement account. Such a change in method of taxation would 
help prevent the financial distress that many farmers now face upon 
retirement.
  Second, my legislation would address the diminishing interest of our 
younger rural citizens in continuing in farming. Because this 
legislation will facilitate the transition of our older farmers into a 
successful retirement, the Family Farm Retirement Equity Act will also 
pave the way for a more graceful transition of our younger farmers 
toward farm ownership. While low prices and low profits in farming will 
continue to take their toll on our younger farmers, I believe that my 
proposal will be one tool we can use to make farming more viable for 
the next generation.
  In past Congresses, this proposal has enjoyed the support of farmers 
and farm organizations throughout the country and the endorsement of 
the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Sheep Industry 
Association, the American Sugar Beet Association, the National 
Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cattleman's Beef 
Association, the National Corn Growers Association, National Pork 
Producers Council, and the Southwestern Peanut Growers Association. In 
addition, a modified version of this legislation was included in the 
Targeted Investment Incentive and Economic Growth Act of 1997, as 
introduced by Minority Leader Daschle and other Senators. I look 
forward to working with these groups and my colleagues again this 
Congress to act on this important legislation as swiftly as possible.
  In addition, I am introducing the Child Care Infrastructure Act, a 
bill to provide a tax credit for businesses that create child care 
opportunities for their employees. While I will have much more to say 
about this important legislation at a later date, I did want to put it 
in the hopper today. Providing quality child care is and should be at 
the center of our agenda for the 106th Congress. My proposal is a low-
cost approach to address this issue by involving the private sector and 
has received praise from businesses, parents, and day care workers 
alike.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of these bills be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 62

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.

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

     SEC. 2. ROLLOVER OF GAIN FROM SALE OF FARM ASSETS TO 
                   INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT PLANS.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter O of chapter 1 
     (relating to common nontaxable exchanges) is amended by 
     inserting after section 1034 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 1034A. ROLLOVER OF GAIN ON SALE OF FARM ASSETS INTO 
                   ASSET ROLLOVER ACCOUNT.

       ``(a) Nonrecognition of Gain.--Subject to the limits of 
     subsection (c), if for any taxable year a taxpayer has 
     qualified net farm gain from the sale of qualified farm 
     assets, then, at the election of the taxpayer, such gain 
     shall be recognized only to the extent it exceeds the 
     contributions to 1 or more asset rollover accounts of the 
     taxpayer for the taxable year in which such sale occurs.
       ``(b) Asset Rollover Account.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Except as provided in this section, an 
     asset rollover account shall be treated for purposes of this 
     title in the same manner as an individual retirement plan.
       ``(2) Asset rollover account.--For purposes of this title, 
     the term `asset rollover account' means an individual 
     retirement plan which is designated at the time of the 
     establishment of the plan as an asset rollover account. Such 
     designation shall be made in such manner as the Secretary may 
     prescribe.
       ``(c) Contribution Rules.--
       ``(1) No deduction allowed.--No deduction shall be allowed 
     under section 219 for a contribution to an asset rollover 
     account.
       ``(2) Aggregate contribution limitation.--Except in the 
     case of rollover contributions, the aggregate amount for all 
     taxable years which may be contributed to all asset rollover 
     accounts established on behalf of an individual shall not 
     exceed--
       ``(A) $500,000 ($250,000 in the case of a separate return 
     by a married individual), reduced by
       ``(B) the amount by which the aggregate value of the assets 
     held by the individual (and spouse) in individual retirement 
     plans (other than asset rollover accounts) exceeds $100,000.

     The determination under subparagraph (B) shall be made as of 
     the close of the taxable year for which the determination is 
     being made.
       ``(3) Annual contribution limitations.--
       ``(A) General rule.--The aggregate contribution which may 
     be made in any taxable year to all asset rollover accounts 
     shall not exceed the lesser of--
       ``(i) the qualified net farm gain for the taxable year, or
       ``(ii) an amount determined by multiplying the number of 
     years the taxpayer is a qualified farmer by $10,000.
       ``(B) Spouse.--In the case of a married couple filing a 
     joint return under section 6013 for the taxable year, 
     subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting `$20,000' 
     for `$10,000' for each year the taxpayer's spouse is a 
     qualified farmer.
       ``(4) Time when contribution deemed made.--For purposes of 
     this section, a taxpayer shall be deemed to have made a 
     contribution to an asset rollover account on the last day of 
     the preceding taxable year if the contribution is made on 
     account of such taxable year and is made not later than the 
     time prescribed by law for filing the return for such taxable 
     year (not including extensions thereof).
       ``(d) Qualified Net Farm Gain; Etc.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) Qualified net farm gain.--The term `qualified net 
     farm gain' means the lesser of--
       ``(A) the net capital gain of the taxpayer for the taxable 
     year, or
       ``(B) the net capital gain for the taxable year determined 
     by only taking into account gain (or loss) in connection with 
     dispositions of qualified farm assets.
       ``(2) Qualified farm asset.--The term `qualified farm 
     asset' means an asset used by a qualified farmer in the 
     active conduct of the trade or business of farming (as 
     defined in section 2032A(e)).
       ``(3) Qualified farmer.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified farmer' means a 
     taxpayer who--
       ``(i) during the 5-year period ending on the date of the 
     disposition of a qualified farm asset materially participated 
     in the trade or business of farming, and
       ``(ii) owned (or who with the taxpayer's spouse owned) 50 
     percent or more of such trade or business during such 5-year 
     period.
       ``(B) Material participation.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, a taxpayer shall be treated as materially 
     participating in a trade or business if the taxpayer meets 
     the requirements of section 2032A(e)(6).
       ``(4) Rollover contributions.--Rollover contributions to an 
     asset rollover account may be made only from other asset 
     rollover accounts.
       ``(e) Distribution Rules.--For purposes of this title, the 
     rules of paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 408(d) shall apply 
     to any distribution from an asset rollover account.
       ``(f) Individual Required To Report Qualified 
     Contributions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any individual who--
       ``(A) makes a contribution to any asset rollover account 
     for any taxable year, or
       ``(B) receives any amount from any asset rollover account 
     for any taxable year,

     shall include on the return of tax imposed by chapter 1 for 
     such taxable year and any succeeding taxable year (or on such 
     other form as the Secretary may prescribe) information 
     described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Information required to be supplied.--The information 
     described in this paragraph is information required by the 
     Secretary which is similar to the information described in 
     section 408(o)(4)(B).
       ``(3) Penalties.--For penalties relating to reports under 
     this paragraph, see section 6693(b).''.
       (b) Contributions Not Deductible.--Section 219(d) (relating 
     to other limitations and restrictions) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Contributions to asset rollover accounts.--No 
     deduction shall be allowed under this section with respect to 
     a contribution under section 1034A.''.
       (c) Excess Contributions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4973 (relating to tax on excess 
     contributions to individual retirement accounts, certain 
     section 403(b) contracts, and certain individual retirement 
     annuities) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Asset Rollover Accounts.--For purposes of this 
     section, in the case of an asset rollover account referred to 
     in subsection (a)(1), the term `excess contribution' means 
     the excess (if any) of the amount contributed for the taxable 
     year to such account over the amount which may be contributed 
     under section 1034A.''.

[[Page 814]]

       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 4973(a)(1) is amended by striking ``or'' and 
     inserting ``an asset rollover account (within the meaning of 
     section 1034A), or''.
       (B) The heading for section 4973 is amended by inserting 
     ``ASSET ROLLOVER ACCOUNTS,'' after ``CONTRACTS''.
       (C) The table of sections for chapter 43 is amended by 
     inserting ``asset rollover accounts,'' after ``contracts'' in 
     the item relating to section 4973.
       (d) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Section 408(a)(1) (defining individual retirement 
     account) is amended by inserting ``or a qualified 
     contribution under section 1034A,'' before ``no 
     contribution''.
       (2) Section 408(d)(5)(A) is amended by inserting ``or 
     qualified contributions under section 1034A'' after 
     ``rollover contributions''.
       (3)(A) Section 6693(b)(1)(A) is amended by inserting ``or 
     1034A(f)(1)'' after ``408(o)(4)''.
       (B) Section 6693(b)(2) is amended by inserting ``or 
     1034A(f)(1)'' after ``408(o)(4)''.
       (4) The table of sections for part III of subchapter O of 
     chapter 1 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 1034 the following new item:

``Sec. 1034A. Rollover of gain on sale of farm assets into asset 
              rollover account.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to sales and exchanges after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                  ____


                                 S. 63

       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 ``Child Care Infrastructure 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. 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) In General.--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.--The term 
     `qualified child care expenditure' means any amount paid or 
     incurred--
       ``(A) to acquire, construct, rehabilitate, or expand 
     property--
       ``(i) which is to be used as part of a qualified child care 
     facility of the taxpayer,
       ``(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,
       ``(B) for the operating costs of a qualified child care 
     facility of the taxpayer, including costs related to the 
     training of employees, to scholarship programs, and to the 
     providing of increased compensation to employees with higher 
     levels of child care training,
       ``(C) under a contract with a qualified child care facility 
     to provide child care services to employees of the taxpayer, 
     or
       ``(D) under a contract to provide child care resource and 
     referral services to employees of the taxpayer.
       ``(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 use of such facility (or the eligibility to use 
     such facility) does not discriminate in favor of employees of 
     the taxpayer who are highly compensated employees (within the 
     meaning of section 414(q)).
       ``(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 ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (11),

[[Page 815]]

       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12), 
     and inserting a comma and ``plus'', and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(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:

``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.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 66. A bill to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in 
the State of New York, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.

                          ____________________