Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1 - THE KATE MULLANY NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE DESIGNATION ACT OF 1999

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 815-1036]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

THE KATE MULLANY NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE DESIGNATION ACT OF 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise today
with my distinguished colleague Senator Schumer to introduce the ``Kate
Mullany National Historic Site Designation Act,'' a bill to designate
the Troy, New York, home of pioneer labor organizer Kate Mullany as a
National Historic Site. A similar measure introduced in the House of
Representatives last year by Congressman Michael R. McNulty engendered
a great deal of support and was cosponsored by over 100 members.
Like many Irish immigrants settling in Troy, Kate Mullany found her
opportunities limited to the most difficult and low-paying of jobs, the
collar laundry industry. Troy was then known as ``The Collar City''--
the birthplace of the detachable shirt collar. At the age of 19, Kate
stood up against the often dangerous conditions and meager pay that
characterized the industry and lead a movement of 200 female
laundresses demanding just compensation and safe working conditions.
These protests marked the beginning of the Collar Laundry Union, which
some have called ``the only bona fide female labor union in the
country.''
Kate Mullany's courage and organizing skills did not go unnoticed.
She later traveled down the Hudson River to lead women workers in the
sweatshops of New York City and was ultimately appointed Assistant
Secretary of the then National Labor Union, becoming the first women
ever appointed to a national labor office.
On April 1, 1998, Kate Mullany's home was designated as a National
Historic Landmark by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and on
July 15 First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton presented citizens of Troy
with the National Historic Landmark plaque in a celebration. By
conferring National Historic Site status on this important landmark, we
can ensure that Kate Mullany's contributions to the labor movement and
the cause of women's equality in the workplace are not soon forgotten.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 66

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 ``Kate Mullany National
Historic Site Designation Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Kate Mullany House in Troy, New York, is listed on
the National Register of Historic Places and has been
designated as a National Historic Landmark;
(2) the National Historic Landmark Theme Study on American
Labor History concluded that the Kate Mullany House appears
to meet the criteria of national significance, suitability,
and feasibility for inclusion in the National Park System;
(3) the city of Troy, New York--
(A) played an important role in the development of the
collar and cuff industry and the iron industry in the 19th
century and in the development of early men's and women's
worker and cooperative organizations; and
(B) was the home of the first women's labor union, led by
Irish immigrant Kate Mullany;
(4) the city of Troy, New York, has entered into a
cooperative arrangement with 6 neighboring cities, towns, and
villages to create the Hudson-Mohawk Urban Cultural Park
Commission to manage the valuable historic resources in the
area, and the area within those municipalities has been
designated by the State of New York as a heritage area to
represent industrial development and labor themes in the
development of the State;
(5) the area, known as the ``Hudson-Mohawk Urban Cultural
Park'' or ``RiverSpark'', has been a pioneer in the
development of partnership parks in which intergovernmental
and public and private partnerships bring about the
conservation of the area's heritage and the attainment of
goals for preservation, education, recreation, and economic
development; and
(6) establishment of the Kate Mullany National Historic
Site and cooperative efforts between the National Park
Service and the Hudson-Mohawk Urban Cultural Park Commission
will--
(A) provide opportunities for the illustration and
interpretation of important themes of the heritage of the
United States; and
(B) provide unique opportunities for education, public use,
and enjoyment.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to preserve and interpret the nationally significant
home of Kate Mullany for the benefit, inspiration, and
education of the people of the United States; and
(2) to interpret the connection between immigration and the
industrialization of the United States, including the history
of Irish immigration, women's history, and worker history.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Historic site.--The term ``historic site'' means the
Kate Mullany National Historic Site established by section 4.
(2) Plan.--The term ``plan'' means the general management
plan developed under section 6(d).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF KATE MULLANY NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.

(a) Establishment.--There is established as a unit of the
National Park System the Kate Mullany National Historic Site
in the State of New York.
(b) Description.--The historic site shall consist of the
home of Kate Mullany, comprising approximately .05739 acre,
located at 350 Eighth Street in Troy, New York, as generally
depicted on the map entitled _____ and dated ______.

SEC. 5. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.

(a) Real Property.--The Secretary may acquire land and
interests in land within the boundaries of the historic site
and ancillary real property for parking or interpretation, as
necessary and appropriate for management of the historic
site.
(b) Personal Property.--The Secretary may acquire personal
property associated with, and appropriate for, the
interpretation of the historic site.
(c) Means.--An acquisition of real property or personal
property may be made by donation, purchase from a willing
seller with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.

SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATION OF HISTORIC SITE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the
historic site in accordance with this Act and the law
generally applicable to units of the National Park System,
including the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a National
Park Service, and for other purposes'', approved August 25,
1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and the Act entitled ``An Act to
provide for the preservation of historic American sites,
buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance,
and for other purposes'', approved August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C.
461 et seq.).
(b) Cooperative Agreements.--In carrying out this Act, the
Secretary may consult with and enter into cooperative
agreements with the State of New York, the Hudson-Mohawk
Urban Cultural Park Commission, and other public and private
entities to facilitate public understanding and enjoyment of
the life and work of Kate Mullany through the development,
presentation, and funding of exhibits and other appropriate
activities related to the preservation, interpretation, and
use of the historic site and related historic resources.
(c) Exhibits.--The Secretary may display, and accept for
the purposes of display, items associated with Kate Mullany,
as may be necessary for the interpretation of the historic
site.
(d) General Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 full fiscal years after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
(A) develop a general management plan for the historic
site; and
(B) submit the plan to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the
House of Representatives.
(2) Contents.--The plan shall include recommendations for
regional wayside exhibits to be carried out through
cooperative agreements with the State of New York and other
public and private entities.
(3) Requirements.--The plan shall be prepared in accordance
with section 12(b) of the

[[Page 816]]

Act entitled ``An Act to improve the administration of the
national park system by the Secretary of the Interior, and to
clarify the authorities applicable to the system, and for
other purposes'', approved August 18, 1970 (16 U.S.C 1a et
seq.).

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Robb,
Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 67. A bill to designate the headquarters building of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development in Washington, District of
Columbia, as the ``Robert C. Weaver Federal Building''; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.

THE ROBERT C. WEAVER FEDERAL BUILDING DESIGNATION ACT OF 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues, Senators
Schumer, Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, and Robb, to introduce legislation to
name the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) headquarters
here in Washington after Dr. Robert C. Weaver, adviser to three
Presidents, director of the NAACP, and the first African-American
Cabinet Secretary. With Senator Kerry, Senator Moseley-Braun, and
Senator Kennedy I introduced an identical bill last year. It was passed
by the Senate by unanimous consent on July 31, 1998 but languished in
the House.
Bob Weaver was my friend, dating back more than 40 years to our
service together in the administration of New York Governor Averell
Harriman. In July of 1997, he died at his home in New York City after
spending his entire life broadening opportunities for minorities in
America. I think it is a fitting tribute to name the HUD building after
this great man.
Dr. Weaver began his career in government service as part of
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's ``Black Cabinet,'' an informal
advisory group promoting educational and job opportunities for blacks.
The Washington Post called this work his greatest legacy, the
dismantling of a deeply entrenched system of racial segregation in
America. Indeed it was.
Dr. Weaver was appointed Deputy Commissioner of Housing for New York
State in 1955, and later became State Rent Administrator with Cabinet
rank. It was during these years, working for Governor Harriman, that I
first met Bob; I was Assistant to the Secretary to the Governor and
later, Acting Secretary.
Our friendship and collaboration continued under the Kennedy and
Johnson administrations. In 1960, he became the president of the NAACP,
and shortly thereafter would become a key adviser to President Kennedy
on civil rights. In 1961, Kennedy appointed Dr. Weaver to head the
Housing and Home Finance Agency, the precursor to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development. In 1966, when President Johnson elevated
the agency to Cabinet rank, he chose Dr. Weaver to head the department.
Bob Weaver was, in Johnson's phrase, ``the man for the job.'' He thus
became its first Secretary, and the first African-American to head a
Cabinet agency. Later, he and I served together on the Pennsylvania
Avenue Commission.
Following his government service, Dr. Weaver was, among various other
academic pursuits, a professor at Hunter College, a member of the
School of Urban and Public Affairs at Carnegie-Mellon, a visiting
professor at Columbia Teacher's College and New York University's
School of Education, and the president of Baruch College in Manhattan.
When I became director of the Joint Center for Urban Studies at MIT and
Harvard, he generously agreed to be a member of the Board of Directors.
Dr. Weaver earned his undergraduate, master's, and doctoral degrees
in economics from Harvard; he wrote four books on urban affairs; and
served as one of the original directors of the Municipal Assistance
Corporation, which designed the plan to rescue New York City during its
tumultuous financial crisis in the 1970s.
When Dr. Weaver died, America--and Washington, in particular (for he
was a native Washingtonian)--lost one of its innovators, one of its
creators, one of its true leaders. Dr. Robert C. Weaver led not only
with his words but with his deeds and I was privileged to know him as a
friend. He will be missed but properly memorialized, I think, if we can
pass this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my bill, a July 21, 1997
editorial in the Washington Post, and a July 19, 1997 obituary from the
New York Times be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 67

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT C. WEAVER FEDERAL BUILDING.

In honor of the first Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development, the headquarters building of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development located at 451 Seventh Street,
SW., in Washington, District of Columbia, shall be known and
designated as the ``Robert C. Weaver Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,
or other record of the United States to the building referred
to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the
``Robert C. Weaver Federal Building''.
____

[From the New York Times, July 19, 1997]

Robert C. Weaver, 89, First Black Cabinet Member, Dies

(By James Barron)

Dr. Robert C. Weaver, the first Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development and the first black person appointed to the
Cabinet, died on Thursday at his home in Manhattan. He was
89.
Dr. Weaver was also one of the original directors of the
Municipal Assistance Corporation, which was formed to rescue
New York City from financial crisis in the 1970's.
``He was a catalyst with the Kennedys and then with
Johnson, forging new initiatives in housing and education,''
said Walter E. Washington, the first elected Mayor of the
nation's capital.
A portly, pedagogical man who wrote four books on urban
affairs, Dr. Weaver had made a name for himself in the 1930's
and 40's as an expert behind-the-scenes strategist in the
civil rights movement. ``Fight hard and legally,'' he said,
``and don't blow your top.''
As a part of the ``Black Cabinet'' in the administration of
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dr. Weaver was one of a
group of blacks who specialized in housing, education and
employment. After being hired as race relations advisers in
various Federal agencies, they pressured and persuaded the
White House to provide more jobs, better educational
opportunities and equal rights.
Dr. Weaver began in 1933 as an aide to Interior Harold L.
Ickes. He later served as a special assistant in the housing
division of the Works Progress Administration, the National
Defense Advisory Commission, the War Production Board and the
War Manpower Commission.
Shortly before the 1940 election, he devised a strategy
that defused anger among blacks about Stephen T. Early,
President Roosevelt's press secretary. Arriving at
Pennsylvania Station in New York, Early lost his temper when
a line of police officers blocked his way. Early knocked one
of the officers, who happened to be black, to the ground. As
word of the incident spread, a White House adviser put
through a telephone call to Dr. Weaver in Washington.
The aide, worried that the incident would cost Roosevelt
the black vote, told Dr. Weaver to find the other black
advisers and prepare a speech that would appeal to blacks for
the President to deliver the speech.
Dr. Weaver said he doubted that he could find anyone in the
middle of the night, even though most of the others in the
``Black Cabinet'' had been playing poker in his basement when
the phone rang. ``And anyway,'' he said, ``I don't think a
mere speech will do it. What we need right now is something
so dramatic that it will make the Negro voters forget all
about Steve Early and the Negro cop too.''
Within 48 hours, Benjamin O. Davis Sr. was the first black
general in the Army; William H. Hastie was the first black
civilian aide to the Secretary of War, and Campbell C.
Johnson was the first high-ranking black aide to the head of
the Selective Service.
Robert Clifton Weaver was born on Dec. 29, 1907, in
Washington. His father was a postal worker and his mother--
who he said influenced his intellectual development--was the
daughter of the first black person to graduate from Harvard
with a degree in dentistry. When Dr. Weaver joined the
Kennedy Administration, whose Harvard connections extended to
the occupant of the Oval Office, he held more Harvard
degrees--three, including a doctorate in economics--than
anyone else in the administration's upper ranks.

[[Page 817]]

In 1960, after serving as the New York State Rent
Commissioner, Dr. Weaver became the national chairman of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
and President Kennedy sought Dr. Weaver's advice on civil
rights. The following year, the President appointed him
administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, a loose
combination of agencies that included the bureaucratic
components of what would eventually become H.U.D., including
the Federal Housing Administration to spur construction, the
Urban Renewal Administration to oversee slum clearance and
the Federal National Mortgage Association to line up money
for new housing.
President Kennedy tried to have the agency raised to
Cabinet rank, but Congress balked. Southerners led an attack
against the appointment of a black to the Cabinet, and there
were charges that Dr. Weaver was an extremist. Kennedy
abandoned the idea of creating an urban affairs department.
Five years later, when President Johnson revived the idea
and pushed it through Congress, Senators who had voted
against Dr. Weaver the first time around vote for him.
Past Federal housing programs had largely dealt with
bricks-and-mortar policies. Dr. Weaver said Washington needed
to take a more philosophical approach. ``Creative federalism
stresses local initiative, local solutions to local
problems,'' he said.
But, he added, ``where the obvious needs for action to meet
an urban problem are not being fulfilled, the Federal
Government has a responsibility at least to generate a
thorough awareness of the problem.''
Dr. Weaver, who said that ``you cannot have physical
renewal without human renewal,'' pushed for better-looking
public housing by offering awards for design. He also
increased the amount of money for small businesses displaced
by urban renewal and revived the long-dormant idea of Federal
rent subsides for the elderly.
Later in his life, he was a professor of urban affairs at
Hunter College, was a member of the Visiting Committee at the
School of Urban and Public Affairs at Carnegie-Mellon
University and held visiting professorships at Columbia
Teachers' College and the New York University School of
Education. He also served as a consultant to the Ford
Foundation and was the president of Baruch College in
Manhattan in 1969.
His wife, Ella, died in 1991. Their son, Robert Jr., died
in 1962.
____

[From the Washington Post, July 20, 1997]

Robert C. Weaver Dies; First Black Cabinet Member

(By Martin Weil)

Robert C. Weaver, 89, who as the nation's first secretary
of Housing and Urban Development was the first black person
to head a Cabinet agency, as well as one of the architects of
the Great Society, died July 17 at his home in Manhattan.
He died in his sleep, according to a family friend. The
cause of death was not immediately known.
Dr. Weaver, who was born and raised in Washington, was
regarded as an intellectual, both pragmatic and visionary,
who worked to improve the lives of blacks and other Americans
both by expanding their opportunities and by bettering their
communities.
``He put the bricks and mortar on President Johnson's
blueprint for a Great Society,'' HUD Secretary Andrew M.
Cuomo said in a statement.
``Robert Weaver got real urban legislation on the books and
nurtured our country's first commitment to improve the
quality of life in our nation's cities,'' Cuomo said.
On Jan. 13, 1966, when President Lyndon B. Johnson
appointed the Harvard PhD and longtime federal and state
housing official to be the first HUD secretary, many
recognized that it was a moment both historic and symbolic.
Johnson said he had considered more than 300 candidates and
had concluded that Dr. Weaver was ``the man for the job.''
In an interview after Dr. Weaver's death, Walter E.
Washington, the District's first mayor elected under home
rule, who had worked with Dr. Weaver, called him ``a giant''
and ``a man of great vision . . . integrity, passion and
commitment.'' Washington said, ``There was never a job that
was too large or one that was too small if he saw in it the
possibility of helping his fellow man.''
Dr. Weaver was born Dec. 29, 1907, into the segregated
world that was then Washington. He once recalled 45-minute
streetcar rides that took him past schools for whites before
he reached his for blacks.
He was descended from a former slave who had bought his
freedom in 1830. His father was a postal worker, and his
mother was the daughter of Robert Tanner Freeman, who was a
Harvard graduate and the first black person in the United
States to receive a doctorate in dentistry.
A multitalented man, Dr. Weaver worked as an electrician
while attending Dunbar High School in Washington. After
graduation, he went to Harvard, where he majored in
economics, won the Boylston speaking prize and received his
bachelor's degree in 1929. He received a master's degree two
years later and a doctorate in economics in 1934.
In 1933, after the watershed election of Franklin D.
Roosevelt, Dr. Weaver was one of the bright young
intellectuals who came to the capital to create and run the
New Deal. He spent 10 years in housing and labor recruitment
and training, detailed for part of that time as an adviser to
Interior Secretary Harold Ickes.
He also worked in the National Defense Advisory Commission
and, during World War II, was director of the Negro Manpower
Service in the War Manpower Commission. During those years,
he also was prominent in what was known as Roosevelt's
informal Black Cabinet, working behind the scenes to improve
conditions and opportunities for blacks.
In the closing years of the war, he was executive secretary
of the Chicago Mayor's Committee on Race Relations. During
the 1940s and early '50s, he taught at universities, worked
for philanthropic foundations and held a series of government
housing posts in New York.
At the start of his administration, President John F.
Kennedy named him chief of what was then the principal
federal agency responsible for housing, the Housing and Home
Finance Agency. He was credited with drawing together and
unifying the efforts of what was regarded as a loose
confederation of offices, bureaus and departments.
It was not until the Johnson administration that efforts to
raise the department to Cabinet level bore fruit.
But throughout his tenure as the chief federal housing
official, it was Dr. Weaver who ``broadened the prespective''
of government policy, said Yvonne Scruggs-Leftwich, executive
director of Black Leadership Forum Inc. and a former New York
state housing commissioner. She said Dr. Weaver moved policy
from a narrow focus on the living unit itself to include
community development, a more expansive view that encompassed
both ``housing and the environment around the housing.''
As Dr. Weaver had expressed it, ``You cannot have physical
renewal without human renewal.''
At the same time, he was known for his work for racial
justice and equality. By the 1960s, he had been active in the
struggle for decades. At the time of his appointment by
Kennedy, he was chairman of the NAACP.
Once, in the early days of the struggle, he advised that
the best way to achieve equality was ``to fight hard--and
legally--and don't blow your top.''
After leaving his Cabinet post at the end of the Johnson
administration, Dr. Weaver returned to New York, where he was
a teacher and a consultant. He headed Baruch College in 1969
and was one of the directors of the Municipal Assistance
Corp., which was set up to save the city from fiscal collapse
in the 1970s.
He wrote, or contributed to, several books and held at
least 30 honorary degrees.
His wife, Ella died in 1991, and their son, Robert Jr.,
died in 1962.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 68. A bill for the relief of Dr. Yuri F. Orlov of Ithaca, New
York; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

private relief bill

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to
recognize the immeasurable debt which we owe to a leading Soviet
dissident. Dr. Yuri F. Orlov, a founding member of the Soviet chapter
of Amnesty International and founder of the Moscow Helsinki Watch Group
(the first nation-wide organization in Soviet history to question
government actions), who now lives in Ithaca, New York, is threatened
by poverty. Yuri Orlov could not be stopped by the sinister forces of
the Soviet Union and, no doubt, he will not be stopped by poverty. But
I rise today in hopes that it will not come to that.
Dr. Orlov's career as a dissident began while he was working at the
famous Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics in Moscow. At
the Institute in 1956 he made a pro-democracy speech which cost him his
position and forced him to leave Moscow. He was able to return in 1972,
whereupon he began his most outspoken criticism of the Soviet regime.
On September 13, 1973, in response to a government orchestrated-
public smear campaign against Andrei Sakharov, Orlov sent ``Thirteen
Questions to Brezhnev,'' a letter which advocated freedom of the press
and reform of the Soviet economy. One month later, he became a founding
member of the Soviet chapter of Amnesty International. His criticism of
the Soviet Union left him unemployed and under constant KGB
surveillance, but he would not be silenced.
In May, 1976 Dr. Orlov founded the Moscow Helsinki Watch Group to
pressure the Soviet Union to honor the human rights obligations it had
accepted under the Helsinki Accords signed in 1975. His leadership of
the Helsinki

[[Page 818]]

Watch Group led to his arrest and, eventually, to a show trial in 1978.
He was condemned to seven years in a labor camp and five years in
exile.
After having served his prison sentence, and while still in exile,
Dr. Orlov was able to immigrate to the United States in 1986 in an
exchange arranged by the Reagan Administration. A captured Soviet spy
was returned in exchange for the release of Dr. Orlov and a writer for
U.S. News & World Report who had been arrested in Moscow, Nicholas
Daniloff.
Since then, Dr. Orlov has served as a senior scientist at Cornell
University in the Newman Laboratory of Nuclear Studies. Now that he is
74 years old, he is turning his thoughts to retirement. Unfortunately,
since he has only been in the United States for 12 years, his
retirement income from the Cornell pension plus Social Security will be
insufficient: only a fraction of what Cornell faculty of comparable
distinction now get at retirement.
His scientific colleagues, Nobel physicist Dr. Hans A. Bethe, Kurt
Gottfried of Cornell, and Sidney Drell of Stanford, have made concerted
efforts to raise support for Dr. Orlov's retirement, but they are in
further need.
To this end, I have agreed to assist these notable scientists in
their endeavor to secure a more appropriate recompense for this heroic
dissident. That is the purpose that brings me here to the Senate floor
today, on the first day of the 106th Congress, to introduce a bill on
Dr. Orlov's behalf.
To understand Dr. Orlov's contributions to ending the Cold War, I
would draw my colleagues attention to his autobiography, Dangerous
Thoughts: Memoirs of a Russian Life. It captures the fear extant in
Soviet society and the courage of men like Orlov, Sakharov, Sharansky,
Solzhenitsyn, and others who defied the Soviet regime. Dr. Orlov, who
spent 7 years in a labor camp and two years in Siberian exile, never
ceased protesting against oppression. Despite deteriorating health and
the harsh conditions of the camp, Dr. Orlov smuggled out messages in
support of basic rights and nuclear arms control. His bravery and that
of his dissident colleagues played no small role in the dissolution of
the Soviet Union. I am sure many would agree that we owe them a
tremendous debt. This then is a call to all those who agree with that
proposition. Dr. Orlov is now in need; please join our endeavor.
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. 68

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

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF DR. YURI F. ORLOV OF ITHACA, NEW YORK.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, Dr. Yuri F. Orlov of Ithaca, New York, shall be deemed
an annuitant as defined under section 8331(9) of title 5,
United States Code, and shall be eligible to receive an
annuity.
(b) Computation.--For purposes of computing the annuity
described under subsection (a), Dr. Yuri F. Orlov shall be
deemed to--
(1) have performed 40 years of creditable service as a
Federal employee; and
(2) received pay at the maximum rate payable for a position
above GS-15 of the General Schedule (as in effect on the date
of enactment of this Act) for 3 consecutive years of such
creditable service.
(c) Contributions.--No person shall be required to make any
contribution with respect to the annuity described under
subsection (a).
(d) Administrative Provisions.--The Director of the Office
of Personnel Management shall--
(1) apply the provisions of chapter 83 of title 5, United
States Code (including provisions relating to cost-of-living-
adjustments and survivor annuity benefits) to the annuity
described under subsection (a) to the greatest extent
practicable; and
(2) make the first payment of such annuity no later than 60
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 69. A bill to make available funds under the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 to provide scholarships for nationals of any of the
independent states of the former Soviet Union to undertake doctoral
graduate study in the social sciences; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.

THE NIS EDUCATION ACT

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the NIS
Education Act. For 75 years academic freedom was squelched in the
Soviet Union and the tools to build a democratic society were lost to
its successor states. Thankfully, that is now passed. The Russians have
the right to claim that they freed their own country from the horrors
of a decayed Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. The Russian people and
their leaders have something about which to be proud.
I rise in that spirit to offer a bill that is simple in both premise
and purpose: build democratic leaders of the NIS for the future through
education. The NIS Education Act will partially fund graduate education
in the social sciences for 500 students from the NIS during the next
five years. The benefits of education and exposure to the United States
will be long lasting.
We want to give these students from the NIS a chance to see American
democracy and learn the tools to improve their own society. Indeed, for
many it will be their first chance to visit the world's oldest
democracy; to see the promise that democracy offers; and to judge its
fruits for themselves. As one of our most famous visitors, Alexis de
Tocqueville, wrote:

Let us look to America, not in order to make a servile copy
of the institutions that she has established, but to gain a
clearer view of the polity that will be the best for us; let
us look there less to find examples than instruction; let us
borrow from her the principles, rather than the details, of
her laws . . . the principles on which the American
constitutions rest, those principles of order, of the balance
of powers, of true liberty, of deep and sincere respect for
right, are indispensable to all republics. . . .

In 1948 the United States instituted the now famous Marshall Plan
which included among its many provisions a fund for technical
assistance. Part of this fund included the ``productivity campaign''
which was designed to bring European businessmen and labor
representatives here to learn American methods of production. During
the Plan's three years, over 6,000 Europeans came to the United States
to study U.S. production. Though the funding for this part of the plan
was less than one-half of one percent of all the Marshall Plan aid, its
impact was far greater. The impact of the NIS Education Act may also be
great.
We must note here the current state of Russia's affairs: it is
deplorable. Despite this situation, last spring the United States
Senate voted to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Throughout the elements of the Russian political system NATO expansion
was viewed as a hostile act they will have to defend against; and they
have said if they have to defend their territory, they will do so with
nuclear weapons; that is all they have left.
The distrust born from NATO expansion will not fade quickly. Let us
hope that the NIS Education Act will provide individuals from Russia
and the other NIS the opportunity to see that we Americans do not hope
for Russia's demise and isolation. Perhaps we can dispel the betrayal
they may feel as a result of NATO enlargement, and give them the tools
to further develop their own democracies.
Beyond that, the importance of training the next generation of social
scientists in the NIS is immeasurable. It is this generation that will
revitalize the universities, teaching the next generation economics,
sociology and other disciplines. It is this generation of social
scientists who will be prepared to enter their Governments armed with
new ideas and new ways of thinking different from the status quo; they
will bring their new knowledge and standards, their linkages to the
United States back to their own countries, and they will have the best
opportunity to influence change there.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 69

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

[[Page 819]]

SECTION 1. SCHOLARSHIPS FOR NATIONALS OF THE INDEPENDENT
STATE OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.

(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (b), the President
is authorized to provide scholarships under chapter 11 of
part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to
assistance to the independent states of the former Soviet
Union; 22 U.S.C. 2295 et seq.) for 100 nationals of the
independent states of the former Soviet Union (as defined in
section 3 of the FREEDOM Support Act (22 U.S.C. 5801)) who
seek to commence graduate study in a six-year program in any
field of social science.
(2) Superseding existing law.--The authority of paragraph
(1) shall be exercised without regard to any other provision
of law.
(b) Requirements.--
(1) Non-federal share.--The President shall require that
not less than 20 percent of the costs of each student's
doctoral study be provided from non-Federal sources.
(2) Requirement of home country services.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, any student supported under this
section who does not perform after graduation at least one
year of service in the student's home country for each year
of study supported under this section shall not be eligible
to be issued a visa to be admitted to the United States.
(c) Allocation of Funds.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated to carry out chapter 11 of part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to assistance to the
independent states of the former Soviet Union; 22 U.S.C. 2295
et seq.) for fiscal years 2000 through 2009, the following
amounts are authorized to be available to carry out
subsection (a):
(1) For fiscal year 2000, $3,500,000 for not to exceed 100
scholarships.
(2) For fiscal year 2001, $7,500,000 for not to exceed 200
scholarships.
(3) For fiscal year 2002, $10,500,000 for not to exceed 300
scholarships.
(4) For fiscal year 2003, $14,000,000 for not to exceed 400
scholarships.
(5) For fiscal year 2004, $17,500,000 for not to exceed 500
scholarships.
(6) For fiscal year 2005, $17,500,000 for not to exceed 500
scholarships.
(7) For fiscal year 2006, $14,000,000 for not to exceed 400
scholarships.
(8) For fiscal year 2007, $10,500,000 for not to exceed 300
scholarships.
(9) For fiscal year 2008, $7,500,000 for not to exceed 200
scholarships.
(10) For fiscal year 2009, $3,500,000 for not to exceed 100
scholarships.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 70. A bill to require the establishment of a Federal task force on
Regional Threats to International Security; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.

the prevention and deterrence of international conflict (predict) act
of 1999

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to give the
administration an incentive for developing a more coherent foreign
policy by pooling the defense, diplomatic, intelligence, and economic
resources of the federal government.
I have labeled this bill the Prevention and Deterrence of
International Conflict Act--``PREDICT''--because the Clinton
Administration failed or willfully suspended its ability to anticipate
a string of foreign calamities last year.
The 1998 calendar of global surprises for the United States revealed
the continuing challenge to this administration of analyzing evidence
adequately for the President to act against the aggressive military
actions of India, Pakistan, North Korea, Yugoslavia, and Iraq.
Although we had satellite images and early warning signs, the second
series of nuclear explosions by India in May eluded the detection of
the intelligence authorities.
Although we had the campaign pledges of India's Prime Minister to
expand the country's nuclear program, no one took them as an omen of
action.
Although we had differing agency assessments of whether the export of
commercial satellite technologies posed the risk of improving China's
military communications capabilities, the president never saw them.
Although Pentagon officials told the Senate Armed Services Committee
on August 24, 1998 that the intelligence community could detect in
advance any launching of a multiple-stage rocket by North Korea, they
professed surprise as a Taepo Dong missile soared over Japan seven days
later.
And although we had indicators that the simmering conflict in Kosovo
could unravel into a major Balkan security crisis, we did not know who
led or supplied the provincial insurgency movement.
Furthermore, before finally approving military action against Iraq
last month, the White House had lurched towards two previous strikes
only to call off the missiles after Saddam Hussein opened his seven-
year old script to repeat the hollow lines that he would cooperate with
the U.N. on his own terms in his own time.
These examples highlight a pattern of fragmentation in the decision-
making apparatus of the Executive Branch. Information that could tilt
the course of a crisis too often remains hidden or undiscovered in the
flow of advice to the White House.
Beyond this disjointed process of making policy, the other critical
issue tying together these episodes of tension centers on the threat of
weapons proliferation fueled by unresolved civil conflicts or the
ambitions of regional tyrants.
The uncertain political status of the territory of Kashmir, for
example, served as a convenient excuse for Indian officials to justify
their nuclear testing last Spring. At the same time, the Pakistanis
cited national prestige and the need to stabilize the governing
coalition, rather than any threat of attack, in explaining their
nuclear response to India's provocation.
In both of these cases, political judgments overshadowed sober
considerations of whether the two nations posed immediate military
risks to one another.
Yet China's hunger for technology, Mr. President, derives less from
an ongoing civil conflict than it does from a military establishment
eager to develop the precision capabilities used by the United States
during the Persian Gulf War.
These capabilities, in turn, will gradually advance Beijing's quest
to displace the United States and Japan as the dominant Asia-Pacific
power.
The PREDICT bill, therefore, brings together the broad range of
foreign policy experts throughout the government into one Federal Task
Force on Regional Threats to International Security. The Federal Task
Force would include representatives of the Departments of State,
Defense, and Commerce, as well as military and foreign intelligence
organizations, to advise the president in three categories:
How the United States can foster diplomatic resolutions of regional
disputes that increase the risk of weapons proliferation;
Trade and investment programs to promote the market-based development
of countries that pursue or possess weapons of mass destruction;
And the implementation of intelligence analysis procedures to ensure
that the president has all of the data necessary before he makes any
decision regarding this category of arms.
The President must establish the Task Force no later than 60 days
after the effective date of the law, and the panel's authority would
expire on October 1, 2001 unless an executive order or an act of
Congress renews the operating charter.
PREDICT, therefore, outlines a clear and comprehensive process for
foreign policy development without prejudging what steps the President
should take. He must create the Task Force. He must consider the
information that it presents, and he must determine whether to accept
it. After two years, both the administration and Congress can judge the
record of the Task Force to decide whether it should continue to
function.
What this legislation proposes that does not exist is an integrated
advisory body to analyze the military, diplomatic, and economic options
available to the president for controlling regional conflicts and the
spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Furthermore, the Task Force deliberately includes intelligence
representatives so that policy options reflect the most updated
information on the intentions of foreign leaders and the capabilities
of their armed forces.
A comprehensive perspective remains central to the execution of
prudent foreign policies. The administration needs to harness the
talent and expertise of the federal government to ensure that

[[Page 820]]

the regional civil, military, and political disputes fostering weapons
proliferation do not present a sustained threat to international
security. For this compelling reason, I urge Congress to renew
America's national security organizations by passing the PREDICT Act.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 71. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a
presumption of service-connection for certain veterans with Hepatitis
C, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Hepatitis C Veterans' Legislation

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation I
introduced late in the 105th Congress to address a serious health
concern for veterans--specifically the health threat posed by the
Hepatitis C virus.
The legislation I am introducing today would make Hepatitis C a
service-connected condition so that veterans suffering from this virus
can be treated by the VA. The bill will establish a presumption of
service connection for veterans with Hepatitis C, meaning that the
Department of Veterans Affairs will assume that this condition was
incurred or aggravated in military service, provided that certain
conditions are met.
Under this legislation, veterans who received a transfusion of blood
during a period of service before December 31, 1992; veterans who were
exposed to blood during a period of service; veterans who underwent
hemodyalisis during a period of service; veterans diagnosed with
unexplained liver disease during a period of service; veterans with an
unexplained liver dysfunction value or test; or veterans working in a
health care occupation during service, will be eligible for treatment
for this condition at VA facilities.
I have reviewed medical research that suggests many veterans were
exposed to Hepatitis C in service and are now suffering from liver and
other diseases caused by exposure to the virus. I am troubled that many
``Hepatitis C veterans'' are not being treated by the VA because they
can't prove the virus was service connected, despite the fact that
Hepatitis C was little known and could not be tested for until
recently.
Mr. President, we are learning that those who served in Vietnam and
other conflicts, tend to have higher than average rates of Hepatitis C.
In fact, VA data shows that 20 percent of its inpatient population is
infected with the Hepatitis C virus, and some studies have found that
10 percent of otherwise healthy Vietnam Veterans are Hepatitis C
positive.
Hepatitis C was not isolated until 1989, and the test for the virus
has only been available since 1990. Hepatitis C is a hidden infection
with few symptoms. However, most of those infected with the virus will
develop serious liver disease 10 to 30 years after contracting it. For
many of those infected, Hepatitis C can lead to liver failure,
transplants, liver cancer, and death.
And yet, most people who have Hepatitis C don't even know it--and
often do not get treatment until it's too late. Only five percent of
the estimated four million Americans with Hepatitis C know they have
it, yet with new treatments, some estimates indicate that 50 percent
may have the virus eradicated.
Vietnam Veterans in particular are just now starting to learn that
they have liver disease caused by Hepatitis C. Early detection and
treatment may help head off serious liver disease for many of them.
However, many veterans with Hepatitis C will not be treated by the VA
because they must meet a standard that is virtually impossible to meet
in order to establish a service connection for their condition--this in
spite of the fact that we now know that many Vietnam-era and other
veterans got this disease serving their country.
Many of my colleagues may be interested to know how veterans were
exposed to this virus. Many veterans received blood transfusions while
in Vietnam. This is one of the most common ways Hepatitis C is
transmitted. Medical transmission of the virus through needles and
other medical equipment is also possible in combat. Medical care
providers in the services were likely at increased risk as well, and
may have, in turn, posed a risk to the service members they treated.
Researchers have discovered that Hepatitis C was widespread in
Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war, and that some blood sent from
the U.S. was also infected with the virus. Researchers and veterans
organizations, including the Vietnam Veterans of America, with whom I
worked closely to prepare this legislation, believe that many veterans
were infected after being injured in combat and getting a transfusion
or from working as a medic around combat injuries.
The Hepatitis C infected veteran is essentially in a catch 22
situation: the VA will not introduce any flexibility into their
established service connection requirements--and many veterans cannot
prove that they contracted Hepatitis C in combat because the science to
detect it did not until recently. Without legislative authority to
treat these veterans, thousands of veterans infected with Hepatitis C
in service will not get the VA health care testing or treatment they
need.
Mr. President, I believe the government will actually save money in
the long run by testing and treating this infection early on. The
alternative is much more costly treatment of end-stage liver disease
and the associated complications, or other disorders.s
Some will argue that further epidemiologic data is needed to resolve
or prove the issue of service connection. I agree that we have our work
cut out for us, and further study is required. However, there is
already a substantial body of research on the relationship between
Hepatitis C and military service. While further research is being
conducted, we should not ask those who have already sacrificed so much
for this country to wait--perhaps for years--for the treatment they
deserve.
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, well respected both within
and outside of the medical profession, has said, ``In some studies of
veterans entering the Department of Veterans Affairs health facilities,
half of the veterans have tested positive for HCV. Some of these
veterans may have left the military with HCV infection, while others
may have developed it after their military service. In any event, we
need to detect and treat HCV infection if we are to head off very high
rates of liver disease and liver transplant in VA facilities over the
next decade. I believe this effort should include HCV testing as part
of the discharge physical in the military, and entrance screening for
veterans entering the VA health system.''
Veterans have already fought their share of battles--these men and
women who sacrificed in war so that others could live in peace
shouldn't have to fight again for the benefits and respect they have
earned.
We still have a long way to go before we know how best to confront
this deadly virus. A comprehensive policy to confront such a monumental
challenge cannot be written overnight. It will require the long-term
commitment of Congress and the Administration to a serious effort to
address this health concern.
I hope this legislation will be a constructive step in this effort,
and I look forward to working with the Veterans Affairs Committee, the
VA-HUD appropriators, Vietnam Veterans of America, and others to meet
this emerging challenge.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 72. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to restore the
eligibility of veterans for benefits resulting from injury or disease
attributable to the use of tobacco products during a period of military
service, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

va tobacco benefits

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
will restore an important benefit for our nation's veterans--disability
compensation benefits for those with tobacco-related illnesses or
disabilities.
The President's budget proposal for FY99 restricted disability
compensation benefits for tobacco-related illnesses, such as lung
cancer. I might ask, once we start restricting service-

[[Page 821]]

related disabilities treated through the VA, where does it end? I am
very concerned that the VA will become a target for further erosions of
veterans benefits. The VA is already having difficulty making good on
its promise to provide essential benefits to veterans. What benefit
will be repealed next?
Some may argue that military personnel made the decision to smoke.
Nobody forced them. But this ignores that fact that these choices were
facilitated, and perhaps even encouraged, by the inclusion of free
cigarettes in individual supply kits and discounts on tobacco products.
Many military personnel may have smoked for the first time while on
active duty.
That is why I have fought to restore veterans disability compensation
for tobacco-related illnesses and disability--because I believe that
Congress circumvented the process and undermined fairness when it
repealed this benefit to fund the ISTEA legislation.
Mr. President, there should have been a full airing of this issue
before we voted to rescind the benefit. There was little debate on the
Senate floor on this matter. This is not how those brave Americans who
sacrificed for freedom should be treated by the government they fought
to preserve.
During the Senate's consideration of the FY99 Budget Resolution, I
opposed efforts to repeal the benefit and voted for an amendment to
sustain it. In addition, I supported an amendment submitted by Senator
McCain to the tobacco bill providing $600 million over five years to
veterans for smoking-related diseases and health care. Finally, during
the Senate's consideration of the FY99 VA-HUD Appropriations Act, I
supported an amendment to restore the benefit. Unfortunately, this
amendment was rejected 54-40. I continue to believe we should debate
the matter fully, we should have a vote, and we should pass legislation
that will right this wrong.
We must not ignore the fact that the military has been one of the
largest distributors of tobacco products for decades. The military
glamorized the use of tobacco and distributed free cigarettes during
World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. We cannot turn a
blind eye to this lethal legacy. We must not turn our backs on those
who continue to suffer the consequences of their service. That is why I
hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort, and
restore this important benefit.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 73. A bill to make available funds under the Mutual Educational
and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 to provide Fulbright scholarships for
Cuban nationals to undertake graduate study in the social sciences; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.

FULBRIGHT SCHOLARSHIPS FOR CUBAN NATIONALS

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
authorize funding for Cuban nationals for the Fulbright Educational
Exchange Program so that they may come to the United States for
graduate study.
The world is a changed place. The Soviet Union dissolved almost a
decade ago, and since then democracy has replaced totalitarianism in
Eastern Europe. Since the demise of its sponsor, the Soviet Union, and
the disappearance of Soviet subsidies, Cuba has had to change to
survive. In time, the winds of democracy sweeping the globe will reach
the shores of Cuba.
We learned from the cold war that one of the most subversive acts in
that ideological conflict was exposing communists to the West. In his
lucid chronicle of the demise of the Soviet Union, Michael Dobbs writes
in Down with Big Brother: The Fall of the Soviet Empire,

A turning point in [Boris] Yeltsin's intellectual
development occurred during his first visit to the United
States in September 1989, more specifically his first visit
to an American supermarket, in Houston, Texas. The sight of
aisle after aisle of shelves neatly stacked with every
conceivable type of foodstuff and household item, each in a
dozen varieties, both amazed and depressed him. For Yeltsin,
like many other first-time Russian visitors to America, this
was infinitely more impressive than tourist attractions like
the Statue of Liberty and the Lincoln Memorial. It was
impressive precisely because of its ordinariness. A
cornucopia of consumer goods beyond the imagination of most
Soviets was within the reach of ordinary citizens without
standing in line for hours. And it was all so attractively
displayed. For someone brought up in the drab conditions of
communism, even a member of the relatively privileged elite,
a visit to a Western supermarket involved a full-scale
assault on the senses.
What we saw in that supermarket was no less amazing than
America itself,'' recalled Lev Sukhanov, who accompanied
Yeltsin on his trip to the United States and shared his sense
of shock and dismay at the gap in living standards between
the two superpowers. ``I think it is quite likely that the
last prop of Yeltsin's Bolshevik consciousness finally
collapsed after Houston. His decision to leave the party and
join the struggle for supreme power in Russia may have
ripened irrevocably at that moment of mental confusion.

The young people of Cuba are that country's future. As such what they
learn now will help shape a post-Castro Cuba. Since its inception in
1947, at the suggestion of Senator J. William Fulbright, the Fulbright
Educational Exchange Program has sent nearly 82,000 Americans abroad
and provided 138,000 foreign students and professors with the
opportunity to come to the United States for study--to live here, to
understand our great country, and return to their own nations so
enriched. Nearly 50 years ago they sent me off to the London School of
Economics. I left the United States untouched by war to live in Europe
as it climbed out of its ruins. In London, I learned from experience
Seymour Martin Lipset's dictum, ``He who knows only one country knows
no country.'' Use the simple analogy of eyesight: it takes two eyes to
provide perspective. It was a seminal time for the world and for me.
This bill will offer that opportunity to Cubans to study in the United
States, as I studied in London.
Fidel Castro will not live forever--it is time to get ready for an
end game. Now is the time to start showing the people of Cuba,
especially the young people, how the United States works and how their
country might change. So let us bring them here and not act like it's
the middle of the Cold War. Let us bring them to the United States and
offer them education and a chance to see the world's oldest democracy
in action. We need to begin now to expose future leaders of Cuba to the
United States. For, as Senator Fulbright observed,

The vital mortar to seal the bricks of world order is
education across international boundaries, not with the
expectation that knowledge would make us love each other, but
in the hope that it would encourage empathy between nations,
and foster the emergence of leaders whose sense of other
nations and cultures would enable them to shape specific
policies based on tolerance and rational restraint.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 73

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

SECTION 1. FULBRIGHT SCHOLARSHIPS FOR CUBAN NATIONALS.

(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--The President is authorized to provide
scholarships under the Fulbright Academic Exchange Program in
section 102 of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange
Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2452) for nationals of Cuba who seek
to undertake graduate study in public health, public policy,
economics, law, or other field of social science.
(2) Prohibition.--No official of the Cuban government, or
any member of the immediate family of the official, shall be
eligible to receive a scholarship under paragraph (1).
(3) Superseding existing law.--The authority of paragraph
(1) shall be exercised without regard to any other provision
of law.
(b) Allocation of Funds.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated to carry out the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.) for fiscal
years 2000 through 2004, the following amounts are authorized
to be available to carry out subsection (a):
(1) For fiscal year 2000, $1,400,000 for not to exceed 20
scholarships.
(2) For fiscal year 2001, $1,750,000 for not to exceed 25
scholarships.
(3) For fiscal year 2002, $2,450,000 for not to exceed 35
scholarships.
(4) For fiscal year 2003, $2,450,000 for not to exceed 35
scholarships.

[[Page 822]]

(5) For fiscal year 2004, $2,450,000 for not to exceed 35
scholarships.
______

By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Mikulski,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lautenberg,
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Robb,
Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Wellstone, and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 74. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the
payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Paycheck Fairness Act

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am privileged to join with my colleague
Senator Tom Daschle to introduce the Paycheck Fairness Act.
Early in the next century, women--for the first time ever--will
outnumber men in the United States workplace. In 1965, women held 35
percent of all jobs. That has grown to more than 46 percent today. And
in a few years, women will make up a majority of the workforce.
Fortunately, there are more business and career opportunities for
women today than there were thirty years ago. Unlike 1965, federal,
state, and private sector programs now offer women many opportunities
to choose their own futures. Working women also have opportunities to
gain the knowledge and skills to achieve their own economic security.
But despite these gains, working women still face a unique
challenge--achieving pay equity. The average woman earns 74 cents for
every dollar that the average man earns. This amounts to a woman
earning $8,434 less than a man over the course of one year and earning
more than a quarter of a million dollars less over the course of a
career.
We must correct this gross inequality, and we must correct it now.
How is this possible with our federal laws prohibiting
discrimination? It is possible because we in Congress have failed to
protect one of the most fundamental human rights--the right to be paid
fairly for an honest day's work.
Unfortunately, our laws ignore wage discrimination against women,
which continues to fester like a cancer in work places across the
country. The Paycheck Fairness Act of 1999 would close this legal
loophole by addressing the problem of pay inequality by redressing past
discrimination and increasing enforcement against future abuses.
I do not pretend that this Act will solve all the problems women face
in the work place. But it is an essential piece of the puzzle. Equal
pay for equal work is often a subtle problem that is difficult to
combat. And, it does not stand alone as an issue that woman face in the
workplace. It is deeply intertwined with the problem of unequal
opportunity. Closing this loophole is not enough if we fail to provide
the opportunity for women to reach high paying positions.
The government, by itself, cannot change the attitudes and
perceptions of individuals and private businesses in hiring and
advancing women, but it can set an example. Certainly President Clinton
has shown great leadership by appointing an unprecedented number of
women to his administration. In my home state of Vermont, Major General
Martha Rainville has been appointed Adjutant General of the Vermont
National Guard--the first woman in the country to hold this prestigious
position.
Vermont is also a leader in providing pay equity. According to the
Institute for Women's Policy Research, Vermont ranks second in
providing equal pay. Even with this ranking, the average woman in
Vermont still is making less than 82 cents for every dollar that the
average man makes in Vermont. We must work in the Senate and in the
workplace to close this gap.
We are all familiar with the glass ceiling which prevents women from
advancing in the workplace. However, woman are also facing a glass
wall--they are unable to achieve equal pay for equal work. Women cannot
break the glass ceiling until the wall comes down.
The Paycheck Fairness Act is one step to remedy this problem and
bring down the glass wall. This Act will strengthen enforcement of the
Equal Pay Act, increase penalties for violations, and permit employees
to openly discuss their wages with coworkers without fear of
retaliation by their employers.
I understand that this bill will not solve all of the problems of pay
inequity, but it will close legal loopholes that allow employers to
routinely underpay women. By closing these loopholes, we will help
women achieve better economic security and provide them with more
opportunities.
______

By Mr. LUGAR:
S. 75. A bill to repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes and the tax
on generation-skipping transfers; to the Committee on Finance.

estate and gift tax repeal act of 1999

______

By Mr. LUGAR:
S. 76. A bill to phase-out and repeal the Federal estate and gift
taxes and the tax on generational-skipping transfers; to the Committee
on Finance.

Estate and Gift Tax Phase-Out Act of 1999

______

By Mr. LUGAR:
S. 77. A bill to increase the unified estate and gift tax credit to
exempt small businesses and farmers from estate taxes; to the Committee
on Finance.

farmer and entrepreneur estate tax relief act of 1999

______

Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Helms):
S. 78. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Act of 1986 to increase
the gift tax exclusion to $25,000; to the Committee on Finance.

gift tax exclusion

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce on behalf of
myself and Senators Hagel, Helms and Roberts a package of legislation
intended to minimize or eliminate the burden that estate and gift taxes
place on our economy. The estate tax hinders entrepreneurial activity
and job creation in many sectors of our economy. Despite the fact that
my bills would help all Americans who face this onerous tax, I come to
the estate tax debate because of my interest in American agriculture.
As Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I have held hearings
on the impact of the estate tax on farmers and ranchers. The effects of
inheritance taxes are fare reaching in the agricultural community.
Citing personal experiences, witnesses described how the estate tax
discourages savings, capital investment and job formation.
One such story came from a Hoosier, Mr. Woody Barton. He is a fifth
generation tree farmer living in the house his great grandparents built
in 1885. I visited his 300 acres of forested property last October and
can attest to its beauty. Typical of many farmers, Mr. Barton is over
65 years old and wants to leave this legacy to his four children. But
he fears that the estate tax may cause his children to strip the timber
and then sell the land in order to pay the estate tax bill. His
grandmother logged a portion of the land in 1939 to pay the debts that
came from the death of her husband. In essence, each generation must
buy back the hard work and dedication of their ancestors from the
federal government. Mr. Barton believes, and I agree, that the actions
of Congress have more impact on the outcome of his family's land than
his own planning and investment. This should not be the case.
The estate and gift tax falls disproportionately hard on our
agricultural producers. Ninety-five percent of farms and ranch
operations are sole proprietorships or family partnerships, subjecting
a vast majority of these businesses to the threat of inheritance taxes.
According to USDA figures, farmers are six times more likely to face
inheritance taxes than other Americans. And commercial farm estates--
those core farms that produce 85 percent of our nation's agricultural
products--are fifteen times more likely

[[Page 823]]

to pay inheritance taxes than other individuals.
This hardship will only get worse as the agricultural community gets
older, with the average farmer about to have a 60th birthday. Many
farmers will shortly confront estate and gift taxes when they pass
their farm onto the next generation. Recently, the USDA estimated that
between 1992 and 2002, more than 500,000 farmers will retire. Only half
of those positions will be replaced by young farmers. Demographic
studies indicate that a quarter of all farmers could confront the
inheritance tax during the next 20 years.
To combat this problem, today I offer several legislative
alternatives to provide relief to those impacted by this tax. My first
bill would repeal the estate and gift taxes outright. My second bill
would phase out the estate tax over five years by gradually raising the
unified credit each year until the tax is repealed after the fifth
year. My third bill would immediately raise the effective unified
credit to $5 million in an effort to address the disproportionate
burden that the estate tax places on farmers and small businesses. My
last bill would raise the gift tax exemption from $10,000 to $25,000.
I believe the best option is a simple repeal of the estate tax. I am
hopeful that during this Congress, as members become more aware of the
effects of this tax, we can eliminate it from the tax code. However,
even if the estate tax is not repealed, the unified credit must be
raised significantly. Despite our most recent success in raising the
exemption level, inflation has caused a growing percentage of estates
to be subjected to the estate tax. My second bill is intended to
highlight this point and provide a gradual path to repeal.
My third bill focuses on relieving the estate tax burden that falls
disproportionately on farmers and small business owners. By raising the
exemption amount to $5 million, 96 percent of estates with farm assets
and 90 percent of estates with non-corporate business assets would not
have to pay estate taxes, according to the IRS.
The final bill in this package would raise the gift tax exemption
from $10,000 to $25,000. This level has not been adjusted since 1982.
Over the years, the inflation has eroded this exemption amount, and I
believe this level must be raised to provide Americans with an
additional tool for passing productive assets to the next generation.
Despite its modest beginnings in 1916, the estate tax has mushroomed
into an exorbitant tax on death that discourages savings, economic
growth and job formation by blocking the accumulation of
entrepreneurial capital and by breaking up family businesses and farms.
With the highest marginal rate at 55 percent, more than half of an
estate can go directly to the government. By the time the inheritance
tax is levied on families, their assets have already been taxed at
least once. This form of double taxation violates perceptions of
fairness in our tax system.
If we are sincere about boosting economic growth, we must consider
what effect the estate tax has on a business owner deciding whether to
invest in new capital goods or hire a new employee. The Heritage
Foundation estimates that repealing the estate tax would annually boost
our economic output by $11 billion, create 145,000 new jobs and raise
personal income by $8 billion. These figures underscore the current
weight of this tax on our economy.
One might expect that for all the economic disincentives caused by
the estate tax, it must at least provide a sizable contribution to the
U.S. Treasury. But in reality, the estate tax only accounts for about 1
percent of federal taxes. It cannot be justified as an indispensable
revenue raiser. Given the blow delivered to job formation and economic
growth, the estate tax may even cost the Treasury money. Our nation's
ability to create new jobs, new opportunities and wealth is damaged as
a result of our insistence on collecting a tax that earns less than 1
percent of our revenue.
But this tax affects more than just the national economy. It affects
how we as a nation think about community, family and work. Small
businesses and farms represent much more than assets. They represent
years of toil and entrepreneurial risk taking. They also represent the
hopes that families have for their children. Part of the American Dream
has always been to build up a business, farm or ranch so that economic
opportunities and a way of life can be passed on to one's children and
grandchildren.
I know first-hand about the dangers of this tax to agriculture. My
father died when I was 24, leaving his 604-acre farm in Marion County,
Indiana, to his family. I helped manage the farm, which had built up
considerable debts during my father's illness. Fortunately, after a
number of years, we were successful in working out the financial
problems and repaying the money. We were lucky. That farm remains in
our family because I have been practicing active estate planning and
execution of the plan along with profitable farming for each of the
last 40 years. But many of today's farmers and small business owners
are not so fortunate. Only about 30 percent of businesses are
transferred from parent to child, and only about 12 percent of
businesses make it to a grandchild.
Mr. President, these bills I have introduced will provide
policymakers with a range of options as they seek to mitigate the
burdens of the estate tax. Doing so will lead to expanded investment
incentives and job creation and will reinvigorate an important part of
the American Dream. I am hopeful that Senators will join me in the
effort to free small businesses, family farms and our economy from this
counterproductive tax. I ask unanimous consent that my four bills be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 75

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Estate and Gift Tax Repeal
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF FEDERAL TRANSFER TAXES.

(a) In General.--Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is hereby repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a)
shall apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts and
generation-skipping transfers made, after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(c) Technical and Conforming Changes.--The Secretary of the
Treasury or the Secretary's delegate shall, as soon as
practicable but in any event not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, submit to the Committee on
Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Finance of the Senate a draft of any technical
and conforming changes in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
which are necessary to reflect throughout

[[Page 824]]

such Code the changes in the substantive provisions of law
made by this Act.
____

S. 76

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Estate and Gift Tax Phase-
Out Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

SEC. 3. PHASE-OUT OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES THROUGH INCREASE
IN UNIFIED ESTATE AND GIFT TAX CREDIT.

(a) In General.--The table in section 2010(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code (relating to applicable credit amount)
is amended to read as follows:

The applicable exclusion amount is:ts dying, and gifts made, during:
2000..................................................$1,000,000
2001..................................................$1,500,000
2002..................................................$2,000,000
2003..................................................$2,500,000
2004...............................................$5,000,000.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts
made, after December 31, 1997.

SEC. 4. REPEAL OF FEDERAL TRANSFER TAXES.

(a) In General.--Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a)
shall apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts and
generation-skipping transfers made, after December 31, 2004.
(c) Technical and Conforming Changes.--The Secretary of the
Treasury or the Secretary's delegate shall not later than 90
days after the effective date of this section, submit to the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a draft of any
technical and conforming changes in the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 which are necessary to reflect throughout such Code
the changes in the substantive provisions of law made by this
Act.
____

S. 77

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 ``Farmer and Entrepreneur
Estate Tax Relief Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The economy of the United States cannot achieve strong,
sustained growth without adequate levels of savings to fuel
productive activity. Inadequate savings have been shown to
lead to lower productivity, stagnating wages and reduced
standards of living.
(2) Savings levels in the United States have steadily
declined over the past 25 years, and have lagged behind the
industrialized trading partners of the United States.
(3) These anemic savings levels have contributed to the
country's long-term downward trend in real economic growth,
which averaged close to 3.5 percent over the last 100 years
but has slowed to 2.4 percent over the past quarter century.
(4) Congress should work toward reforming the entire
Federal tax code to end its bias against savings.
(5) Repealing the estate and gift tax would contribute to
the goals of expanding savings and investment, boosting
entrepreneurial activity, and expanding economic growth. The
estate tax is harmful to the economy because of its high
marginal rates and its multiple taxation of income.
(6) The repeal of the estate tax would increase the growth
of the small business sector, which creates a majority of new
jobs in our Nation. Estimates indicate that as many as 70
percent of small businesses do not make it to a second
generation and nearly 90 percent do not make it to a third.
(7) Eliminating the estate tax would lift the compliance
burden from farmers and family businesses. On average,
family-owned businesses spent over $33,000 on accountants,
lawyers, and financial experts in complying with the estate
tax laws over a 6.5-year period.
(8) Abolishing the estate tax would benefit the
preservation of family farms. Nearly 95 percent of farms and
ranches are owned by sole proprietors or family partnerships,
subjecting most of this property to estate taxes upon the
death of the owner. Due to the capital intensive nature of
farming and its low return on investment, farmers are 15
times more likely to be subject to estate taxes than other
Americans.
(9) As the average age of farmers approaches 60 years, it
is estimated that a quarter of all farmers could confront the
estate tax over the next 20 years. The auctioning of these
productive assets to finance tax liabilities destroys jobs
and harms the economy.
(10) Abolishing the estate taxes would restore a measure of
fairness to our Federal tax system. Families should be able
to pass on the fruits of the labor to the next generation
without realizing a taxable event.
(11) Despite this heavy burden on entrepreneurs, farmers,
and our entire economy, estate and gift taxes collect only
about 1 percent of our Federal tax revenues. In fact, the
estate tax may not raise any revenue at all, because more
income tax is lost from individuals attempting to avoid
estate taxes than is ultimately collected at death.
(12) Repealing estate and gift taxes is supported by the
White House Conference on Small Business, the Kemp Commission
on Tax Reform, and 60 small business advocacy organizations.

SEC. 3. INCREASE IN UNIFIED ESTATE AND GIFT TAX CREDIT.

(a) In General.--The table in section 2010(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code (relating to applicable credit amount)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``2000 and 2001'' and inserting ``2000 or
thereafter'',
(2) by striking ``$675,000'' and inserting ``$5,000,000'',
and
(3) by striking all matter beginning with the item relating
to 2002 and 2003 through the end of the table.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts
made, after December 31, 1999.
____

S. 78

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN GIFT TAX EXCLUSION.

(a) In General.--Section 2503(b) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to exclusions from gifts) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$10,000'' each place it appears and
inserting ``$25,000'',
(2) by striking ``1998'' in paragraph (2) and inserting
``2000'', and
(3) by striking ``1997'' in paragraph (2)(B) and inserting
``1999''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to gifts made after December 31, 1999.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 79. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
require disclosure of certain disbursements made for electioneering
communications, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and
Administration.

advancing truth and accountability in campaign communications act of
1999

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce on behalf of
myself and Mr. Jeffords the Advancing Truth and Accountability in
Campaign Communications Act of 1999, or ATACC, which represents an
effort to attack the problem of stealth advocacy advertising in federal
elections and shine the spotlight of disclosure on those who would
attempt to fly under the radar screen of our campaign finance laws.
Before I begin, I want to thank and commend Senator Jeffords for all
his valuable input and hard work in helping to craft this legislation,
which was originally introduced as an amendment last year to the
McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill. And I want to thank
Senators McCain and Feingold themselves, who encouraged our efforts.
In the past several elections, we've seen a proliferation of
advertisements over the airwaves which cloak themselves in the
innocuous guise of ``issue

[[Page 825]]

advocacy'', or voter education. The sponsors of these ads would have us
believe that they are performing a public service by running these ads,
and do not intend for them to affect the outcome of federal elections.
They claim that because they do not use words like ``vote for'', or
``vote against'', they are exempt from federal campaign finance laws.
They even argue that no one has the right simply to know who is
sponsoring the ads.
And yet, these ads say things like: ``Mr. X promised he'd be
different. But he's just another Washington politician. Why during the
last year alone, he has taken over $260,000 from corporate special
interest groups. . . . But is he listening to us anymore?''
I defy anyone to argue, with a straight face, that that message is
anything other than a blatant attempt to influence a federal election.
And yet, under current law, any person, labor union, or corporation,
has a right to run such ads without even disclosing the most basic
information, such as who they are, or how much they are spending. And
that is just plain wrong.
During the 1996 elections, the Annenberg Public Policy Center
estimates that anywhere between $135 million and $150 million was spent
by third party groups not associated with candidates' campaigns on such
radio and television ads. I say ``estimates'' because we really don't
know for sure. There is no official record kept, nor is anyone required
to submit the kind of information needed to keep such records.
And lest there be any doubt of the real intent of these ads, the
Annenburg Report found that nearly 87 percent of them mentioned a
candidate for office by name, and over 41 percent were seen by the
public as ``pure attack'' ads--that's the highest percentage recorded
among a group that also included Presidential ads, debates, free-time
segments accorded candidates, and news programs.
If anything, not surprisingly, the problem got worse in the 1997-1998
election cycle. The Annenberg Center has completed their study of this
time period, and has determined that issue ad spending in the last
cycle doubled the amount spent in 1995 through 1996--to total between
$275 and $340 million. Of those ads, over 53 percent mentioned
candidates by name during the cycle--a number which rose to over 80
percent in the final two months. Further, 51.5 percent of issue ads
aired after September 1, 1998, were pure attack ads in terms of their
content. At least 77 groups ran broadcast issue ads in 1997 and 1998.
As Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute has stated,
``(These are) conservative number(s), since there is no disclosure of
(these) media buys or other spending.'' To put this in perspective,
1998 was the first billion dollar election--meaning that about a
quarter of the money spent was on what I call ``stealth advocacy''
advertising. One quarter of all the money spent--which the Annenberg
Center estimates is roughly equivalent to what candidates themselves
spent on their own campaigns--was unaccounted for, unreportable and
unregulated in any fashion. And, as Norm Ornstein has pointed out, 1998
was an ``off-year'', and ``without campaign reform, we can probably
look forward to the $2 billion or $3 billion election in 2000, with a
half-billion of it disguised as issue advocacy.''
Let me explain how this bill will get to the core of this problem;
how it works; and why it is much more likely to pass court muster than
previous attempts to get at this issue.
The premise of this bill was developed in consultation with noted
constitutional scholars and reformers such as Norm Ornstein; Josh
Rosenkrantz, Director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU; and
others. The approach is a straightforward, two tiered one that only
applies to advertisements that constitute the most blatant form of
electioneering.
It only applies to ads run on radio or television, 30 days before a
primary and 60 days before a general election, that identify a federal
candidate. And only if over $10,000 is spent on such ads in a year.
What is required is disclosure of the ads' sponsor and major donors,
and a prohibition on the direct or indirect use of corporation or union
money to fund the ads.
We called this new category ``electioneering ads''. They are the only
communications addressed, and we define them very narrowly and
carefully.
If the ad is not run on television or radio; if the ad is not aired
within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, if the ad
doesn't mention a candidate's name or otherwise identify him clearly,
if it isn't targeted at the candidate's electorate, or if a group
hasn't spent more than $10,000 in that year on these ads, then it is
not an electioneering ad.
If it is an item appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial
distributed through a broadcast station, it is also not an
electioneering ad. Plain and simple.
If one does run an electioneering ad, two things happen. First, the
sponsor must disclose the amount spent and the identity of contributors
who donated more than $500 to the group since January 1 of the previous
year. Right now, candidates have to disclose campaign contributions
over $200. Second, the ad cannot be paid for by funds from a business
corporation or labor union--only voluntary contributions.
The clear, narrow wording of the bill is important because it passes
two critical First Amendment doctrines that were at the heart of the
Supreme Court's landmark Buckley versus Valeo decision: vagueness and
overbreadth. The rules of this provision are clear. And the
requirements are strictly limited to ads run near an election that
identify a candidate--ads plainly intended to convince voters to vote
for or against a particular candidate.
Nothing in this bill restricts the right of any group to engage in
issue advocacy. For example, the following ad--which was actually run
in 1996--would be completely unaffected by this bill. The text of the
ad--which is a pure issue ad in the true sense of the term--says,
``This election year, America's children need your vote. Our public
schools are our children's ticket to the future. But education has
become just another target for attack by politicians who want huge cuts
in education programs. They're making the wrong choices. Our children
deserve leaders who will strengthen public education, not attack it.
They deserve the best education we can give them. So this year, vote as
if your children's future depends on it. It does.''
That is not an electioneering ad, and that conclusion is not simply
based on perception. It is based on the fact that it does not meet the
clearly delineated criteria put forth in our bill, and therefore,
exists completely outside the realm of this legislation.
For that matter, nothing prohibits groups from running electioneering
ads, either. Let me be clear on this: if this bill becomes law, any
group running issues ads today can still run issue ads in the future,
with no restrictions on content. And any group running electioneering
ads can still run those ads in the future, again with absolutely zero
restrictions on content.
The argument that will no doubt be leveled by opponents to this
approach--those advocates of secrecy who do not want the public to know
who is financing these ads, and for how much--is that it is
inconsistent with the First Amendment of the Constitution. This is
simply not so, and that's not just my opinion. Constitutional scholars
from Stanford Law to Georgia Law to Loyola Law to Vanderbilt Law have
endorsed the approach of this bill.
The fact is, the only restrictions in the bill--namely, the use of
union and corporation treasury money to pay for electioneering ads--are
rooted in well-established case law that has long allowed for the
regulation of the use of such money for electioneering purposes.
Further, the threshold for disclosure is more than double what it is
for candidates who receive contributions, and absolutely no disclosure
is required whatsoever from any person or entity which spends less than
$10,000. And it bears repeating that nothing in this bill affects any
printed communications in any way, shape, or form--so voter guides are
completely outside the universe of communications that are covered by
this measure.

[[Page 826]]

Mr. President, ATACC is a sensible, reasonable approach to attacking
a burgeoning segment of electioneering that is making a mockery of our
campaign finance system. I would ask my colleagues, how can anyone not
be for disclosure? How can anyone say that less information for the
public leads to better elections? Don't the American people have the
right to know who is paying for these stealth advocacy ads, and how
much?
Apparently, the majority of the Senate thought so. Last year, when
this measure was approved as an amendment and incorporated into the
McCain-Feingold legislation, the bill garnered 52 votes--bringing the
majority of the Senate on board. Unfortunately, the will of the
majority did not ultimately prevail, as we were unable to break the
sixty votes necessary to end a threatened filibuster and institute
real, fair and meaningful reform in the way in which American elections
are financed.
But we have heard before that it can't be done, only to see the House
of Representatives do it. Today, we have new members of this body--
members who have seen first hand the effects these electioneering ads
are having on campaigns and elections in this country, and I invite
them to join with Senators Jeffords and I in supporting this bill. I
would say to them that we, as candidates and Senators, are accountable
to the people. We're required to file disclosure reports as candidates.
PACs are required to disclose. But hundreds of millions of dollars are
spent on these ads without one dime being reported. Not one dime.
Mr. President, I come to this debate as a veteran supporter of
campaign finance reform. As someone who has served on Capitol Hill for
twenty years, I understand the realities, and I know that there are
concerns on both sides of the aisle that whatever measure we may
ultimately pass, it must be fair, equitable, and constitutional.
This bill passes all three of these tests. And it represents one,
significant step we might take to ensure that the first elections of
the next century--the next millennium--are more open, more fair, and
more representative of the will of the individual. That's what this
bill is really all about, Mr. President. It's about putting elections
back into the hands of individuals by letting them have the facts they
need to make informed decisions, and by ensuring that electioneering
ads are paid for by voluntary, individual contributions.
That's all, Mr. President. No plot to subvert the First Amendment. No
scheme to silence any group or person. No plan to control what anyone
says or when they say it. Just an honest, constitutionally sound
attempt to bring some honesty and accountability back into
electioneering advertising, and return some sense of confidence to the
American people that their elections belong to them. I ask my
colleagues to join me in supporting this sensible, incremental
approach, and join in the fight to attack secrecy and promote honesty
in campaign advertising.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on this first legislative day of the
106th Congress I rise in the Senate Chamber to express my strong
support for the bill Senator Snowe and I are introducing and urge my
Senate colleagues to join as cosponsors of this important legislation.
Throughout the last Congress the Senate spent many legislative hours
debating campaign finance reform. In fact, since my election to the
House in the wake of the Watergate scandal, I have spent many long
hours working with my colleagues to craft campaign finance reform
legislation that could endure the legislative process and survive a
constitutional challenge. We came close in 1994 and last year, and I
believe circumstances still remain right for enactment of meaningful
campaign finance reform during this Congress.
I believe that the irregularities associated with our recent
campaigns, and especially in the 1996 elections, point out the fact
that current election laws are not being strongly enforced or working
to achieve the goals that we all have for campaign finance reform. The
proof obtained from the hearings in both the House and the Senate on
campaign finance abuses should alone be enough to motivate my
colleagues to complete work on this issue in the Senate. Without
action, these abuses will become more pronounced and widespread as we
go from election to election.
The Snowe-Jeffords bill, the Advancing Truth and Accountability of
Campaign Communications Act (ATACC), will boost disclosure requirements
and tighten the rule on expenditures of corporate and union treasury
funds in the weeks preceding a primary and general election.
I would like to begin with a story that may help my colleagues
understand the need for this legislation, and that many of my
colleagues may understand from their own campaigns. Two individuals are
running for the Senate and have spent the last few months holding
debates, talking to the voters and traveling around the state. Both
candidates feel that they have informed the voters of their thoughts,
views and opinions on the issues, and that the voters can use this
information to decide on which candidate they will support.
Two weeks before the day of the election a group called the People
for the Truth and the American Way, let's say, begins to run television
advertisements which include the picture of one of the candidates and
that candidate's name. However, these advertisements do not use the
express terms of ``vote for'' or ``vote against.'' These advertisements
discuss issues such as the candidate's drinking, supposed off-shore
bank accounts and the failure of the candidate's business.
The voters do not know who this group is, who are its financial
backers and why they have an interest in this specific election, and
under our current election law the voters will not find out. Thus, even
though the candidates have attempted to provide the voters with all the
information concerning the candidate's views on the issues, they will
be casting their vote lacking critical information concerning these
advertisements.
Some people may say that voters do not need this information. But as
James Madison said, ``A popular government without popular information
is but a prologue to a tragedy or a farce or perhaps both. Knowledge
will forever govern ignorance and a people who mean to be their own
governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.''
Mr. President, the ATACC Act will arm the people with the knowledge
they need in order to sustain our popular government. And the need to
arm the people with this knowledge is becoming greater every year. As
my colleague Senator Snowe has stated, the amount of money spent on
issue advocacy advertising is increasing over time at an alarming rate.
In the 1995-1996 election cycle an estimated $135-150 million was spent
on issue advocacy, while in the recently completed cycle an estimated
$275-340 million was expended on these types of advertisements. This is
a doubling of the amount of money spent on issue advocacy ads in one
election cycle, and I fear entering an election cycle that includes a
Presidential election that we may see at least another doubling of
these type of expenditures.
I have long believed in Justice Brandeis' statement that, ``Sunlight
is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' The disclosure requirements
in the ATACC Act are narrow and tailored to provide the electorate with
the important pertinent information they will need to make an informed
decision. Information included on the disclosure statement includes the
sponsor of the advertisement, amount spent, and the identity of the
contributors who donated more than $500. Getting the public this
information will greatly help the electorate evaluate those who are
seeking federal office.
Additionally, this disclosure, or disinfectant as Justice Brandeis
puts it, will also help deter actual corruption and avoid the
appearance of corruption that many already feel pervades our campaign
finance system. This, too, is an important outcome of the disclosure
requirements of this bill. Getting this information into the public
purview

[[Page 827]]

would enable the press, the FEC and interest groups to help ensure that
our federal campaign finance laws are obeyed. If the public doesn't
feel that the laws Congress passes in this area are being followed,
this will lead to a greater level of disillusionment in their elected
representatives. Exposure to the light of day of any corruption by this
required disclosure will help reassure our public that the laws will be
followed and enforced.
While our bill focuses on disclosure, it will also prohibit
corporations and unions from using general treasury monies to fund
these types of electioneering communications in a defined period close
to an election. Since 1907, federal law has banned corporations from
engaging in electioneering. In 1947, that ban was extended to prohibit
unions from electioneering as well. The Supreme Court has upheld these
restrictions in order to avoid the deleterious influences on federal
elections resulting from the use of money by those who exercise control
over large aggregations of capital. By treating both corporations and
unions similarly we extend current regulation cautiously and fairly. I
feel that this prohibition, coupled with the disclosure requirements,
will address many of the concerns my colleagues from both sides of the
aisle have raised with regards to our current campaign finance laws.
Mr. President, I think it is important to clarify at this time some
of the things that this bill will not do. It will not prevent grass-
roots lobbying communications, it does not cover printed material, nor
require the text or a copy of the advertisement to be disclosed.
Finally, it does not restrict how much money can be spent on ads, nor
restrict how much money a group raises. These points must be expressed
early on to ensure that my colleagues can clearly understand what we
are and are not attempting to do with our legislation.
We have taken great care with our bill to avoid violating the
important principles in the First Amendment of our Constitution. This
has required us to review the seminal cases in this area, including
Buckley v. Valeo. Limiting corporate and union spending and disclosure
rules has been an area that the Supreme Court has been most tolerant of
regulation. We also strove to make the requirements sufficiently clear
and narrow to overcome unconstitutional claims of vagueness and
overbreadth.
Mr. President, I wish I could guarantee to my colleagues that these
provisions would be held constitutional, but as we found out with the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, even with near unanimous support, it
is difficult to gauge what the Supreme Court will decide on
constitutional issues. However, I feel that the provisions we have
created follow closely the constitutional roadmap established by the
Supreme Court by the decisions in this area, and that it would be
upheld.
I know that campaign finance reform is an area of diverse viewpoints
and beliefs. However, I feel that the ATACC act offers a constructive
and constitutional solution that addresses some of the problems that
have been expressed concerning our current campaign finance system. The
American people are watching and hoping that we will have a fair,
informative and productive debate on campaign finance reform. I know
that the proposal that Senator Snowe and I have put forward will do
just that.
The electorate has grown more and more disappointed with the tenor of
campaigns over the last few years, and this disappointment is reflected
in the low number of people that actually participate in what makes
this country and democracy great, voting. I feel that giving the voters
the additional information required by our legislation will help dispel
some of the disillusionment the electorate feel with our campaign
system and reinvigorate people to participate again in our democratic
system.
In conclusion, the very basis of our democracy requires that an
informed electorate participate by going to the polls and voting. The
ATACC act will through its disclosure requirements inform our
electorate and lead people to again participate in our democratic
system.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 80. A bill to establish the position of Assistant United States
Trade Representative for Small Business, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.

small business enhancement act

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
designed to help America's small businesses. This legislation will
assist small businesses by requiring an estimate of the cost of a bill
on small businesses before Congress enacts the legislation, and by
creating an Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Small Business.
Small business is the driving force behind our economy, and in order
to create jobs--both in my home State of Maine and across the Nation--
we must encourage small business expansion.
Nationwide, an estimated 13 to 16 million small businesses represent
over 99 percent of all employers. They also employ 52 percent of the
workers, and 38 percent of workers in high-tech occupations. Small
businesses account for virtually all of the net new jobs, and 51
percent of private sector output.
In my home State of Maine, of the 36,660 businesses with employees in
1997, 97.6 percent of the businesses were small businesses. Maine also
boasts an estimated 71,000 self-employed persons. In terms of job
growth, small businesses are credited with all of the net new jobs in a
survey of job growth from 1992 to 1996.
Small businesses are the most successful tool we have for job
creation. They provide a substantial majority of the initial job
opportunities in this country, and are the original--and finest--job
training program. Unfortunately, as much as small businesses help our
own economy--and the Federal Government--by creating jobs and building
economic growth, government often gets in the way. Instead of assisting
small business, Government too often frustrates small business efforts.
Federal regulations create more than 1 billion hours of paperwork for
small businesses each year, according to the Small Business
Administration. Moreover, because of the size of some of the largest
American corporations, U.S. commerce officials too often devote a
disproportionate amount of time to the needs and jobs in corporate
America rather than in small businesses.
My legislation will address two problems facing our Nation's small
businesses, and I hope it will both encourage small business expansion
and fuel job creation.
One, this legislation will require a cost analysis legislative
proposal before new requirements are passed on to small businesses. Too
often, Congress approves well-intended legislation that shifts the
costs of programs to small businesses. This proposal will help ensure
that these unintended consequences are not passed along to small
businesses.
According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small business
owners spend at least 1 billion hours a year filling out government
paperwork, at an annual cost that exceeds $100 billion. Before we place
yet another obstacle in the path of small business job creation, we
should understand the costs our proposals will impose on small
businesses.
This bill will require the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office to prepare for each committee an analysis of the costs to small
businesses that would be incurred in carrying out provisions contained
in new legislation. This cost analysis will include an estimate of
costs incurred in carrying out the bill or resolution for a 4-year
period, as well as an estimate of the portion of these costs that would
be borne by small businesses. This provision will allow us to fully
consider the impact of our actions on small businesses--and through
careful planning, we may succeed in avoiding unintended costs.
Two, this legislation will direct the U.S. Trade Representative to
establish a position of Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Small
Business. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is overburdened,
and too often overlooks the needs of small business. The new Assistant
U.S. Trade Representative

[[Page 828]]

will promote exports by small businesses and work to remove foreign
impediments to these exports.
Mr. President, I am convinced that this legislation will truly assist
small businesses, resulting not only in additional entrepreneurial
opportunities but also in new jobs. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this legislation.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Allard, and Mr.
Akaka):
S. 81. A bill to authorize the Federal Aviation Administration to
establish rules governing park overflights; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

National Parks Overflights Act

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National
Parks Overflights Act. This legislation intends to promote air safety
and protect natural quiet in our national parks by providing a process
for developing air tour management plans (ATMP) at those parks. An ATMP
at a national park would manage commercial air tour flights over and
around that park, and over any Native American lands within or adjacent
to the park.
I would like to remind my colleagues that this is the same
legislation that was approved overwhelmingly by the Senate last
September, as part of the Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation
System Improvement Act, or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
reauthorization bill. Today I reintroduced the FAA reauthorization bill
that was approved by the Senate last year. Title VI of the bill deals
with national parks overflights.
Mr. President, the National Parks Overflights Act was developed at
the recommendation of the National Parks Overflights Working Group. The
working group was established to develop a plan for instituting flight
restrictions over national parks because of the noise and environmental
consequences associated with commercial air tours of the parks.
Environmentalists, as well as general aviation and air tour industry
representatives, constituted the membership of the working group. The
group recommended a consensus proposal on overflights, which is
embodied in the National Parks Overflights Act.
Visitors to our national parks, whether by air or through the
entrance gate, deserve a safe and quality visitor experience. The
number of air tour flights across the country is on the rise. As
additional aircraft operate in concentrated airspace, the risk of an
accident increases. We have a responsibility to manage park airspace to
provide for the safe and orderly flow of traffic.
``Natural quiet,'' or the ambient sounds of the environment without
the intrusion of manmade noise, is a highly valued resource for
visitors to our national parks. As commercial air tour flights
increase, their noise also increases, which can impair the opportunity
for park visitors on the ground to enjoy the natural quiet that they
seek and deserve.
The National Parks Overflights Act seeks to promote both safety and
natural quiet by providing a fair and balanced process for the
development of Air Tour Management Plans at individual parks. The FAA
Administrator and the Director of the National Park Service are to work
cooperatively to develop an ATMP through a public process.
The development of an ATMP will include the environmental
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The bill would
also require that commercial air tour operators increase their safety
standards, specifically by meeting FAA Part 135 or Part 121 safety
criteria.
Certain parks have been dealt with individually in the bill because
of their unique circumstances. Since Grand Canyon overflights are
governed by legislation that has already been enacted into law, the
Grand Canyon National Park has been exempted from the legislation.
Alaska is also exempt from the legislation given the vast expanse of
park land and the unique nature of aviation in the state. The
legislation would prohibit commercial air tours of the Rocky Mountain
National Park.
Let me conclude by saying that commercial air tours provide a
legitimate means of experiencing national parks. They are particularly
important for providing access to the elderly and the disabled. I
believe that this legislation appropriately balances the rights of all
park visitors. I hope and expect that we can work together toward its
swift enactment.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Lott, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Frist, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Wyden and Mr. Akaka):
S. 82. A bill to authorize appropriations for Federal Aviation
Administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.

The Air Transportation Improvement Act

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Air
Transportation Improvement Act, which would reauthorize the programs of
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), including the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP). This legislation includes numerous
provisions that will help sustain and enhance safety, security,
efficiency, and competition in the national aviation system. The bill
also would establish a widely-endorsed system for managing the
environmental consequences of commercial air tour flights over national
parks.
As most of my colleagues know, the Commerce Committee worked hard
last year to develop a multi-year FAA reauthorization bill. Following a
bipartisan, inclusive, and constructive process, we developed a package
that among other things would have authorized important airport
construction grants. The legislation also would have instituted a host
of safety and security enhancements.
One of the key elements of last year's Senate-passed FAA bill was the
aviation competition and service title. It would have modestly enhanced
the capacity at the four slot-controlled airports in the country--
LaGuardia and JFK in New York, Chicago O'Hare, and Reagan National. New
entrant, low fare carriers have been effectively shut out of these key
markets, which are critical to sustaining a healthy network and giving
consumers new low cost choices.
Senator Frist and Majority Leader Lott were instrumental in
developing these proposals. Senator Frist in particular has been out in
front in the effort to bolster the role that regional jets play in the
overall aviation system. As everyone who cares about the quality of air
service knows, regional jets will be integral to expanding and
improving service to small and medium-sized communities in the years to
come.
Unfortunately, special interests worked to thwart our efforts and
killed these provisions to encourage airline competition. Instead of
delivering pro-consumer aviation legislation to the traveling public,
Congress failed to act after some of the major airlines applied
pressure against these proposals that threatened their lock on the
market.
On the same day that the Senate approved the bill by a vote of 92 to
one, we also appointed conferees. Although the House approved its own
FAA reauthorization bill in August of last year, the leadership failed
to appoint conferees. As a result, the two chambers were never given an
opportunity to reconcile the two bills. Congress was then forced to
include a short-term reauthorization of the AIP in the Omnibus
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999. This was a clear failure on
the part of the 105th Congress.
The text of the bill I am introducing today is nearly identical to
the FAA reauthorization bill that the Senate approved overwhelmingly
last year. The only changes that have been made involve a few purely
technical corrections and removal of provisions that have already been
enacted into law.
In last year's Omnibus Appropriations Act, we reauthorized the AIP
for six months so that this Congress would have to act immediately to
complete the work of the last Congress. The AIP is set to expire on
March 31, 1999. With the introduction of this bill, I am fulfilling my
commitment to continue the

[[Page 829]]

reauthorization process where the last Congress left off in a time
frame that ensures the continuation of the federal airport grant
program.
I plan to hold a hearing on this bill and to mark it up as soon as
possible. The heavy lifting has already been done. The bill may undergo
some revisions, especially considering our good fortune to have Senator
Rockefeller appointed as the new ranking member on the Aviation
Subcommittee. Even so, it will not be necessary for us to start from
scratch. As the Commerce Committee begins this effort, I look forward
to working again with Senators Gorton, Hollings, and Rockefeller, as
well as the rest of my colleagues, on a reauthorization package that
all Senators can support.
Mr. President, we must work over the next few months to finish the
job we started last year. It is vital that we push forward with the
important pro-consumer provisions that are included in this bill. Last
year, consumers lost out to special interests. This year, I will use
all means at my disposal to ensure that does not happen again.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I join with Senator McCain,
Senator Hollings and others in introducing legislation to authorize
spending for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through fiscal
year 2000. As we embark on this new session of a new Congress, it is
critical that we begin immediately the process of putting together a
comprehensive aviation bill--to ensure that the FAA is fully
authorized, to facilitate continued critical airport development, and
to address a number of broad aviation policy matters.
I want to make clear at the outset that I join as a cosponsor of this
bill as a starting point. Senator McCain plans to pursue vigorously a
comprehensive bill, and that will be our first order of business, but
haste may not allow us to do all that we want and have a responsibility
to do, particularly if the House continues to pursue its own clean, 6-
month reauthorization bill, and then a long-term bill. I am hopeful
that we will accomplish our objectives expeditiously, but I see any
number of hurdles in our path and believe that in the Senate, too, we
may need to pursue a short-term extension and then give this
legislation the consideration it is due.
As my colleagues know, I have the honor in this Congress of following
in the great foot steps of Wendell Ford, who served this body for 24
years, and served as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Aviation
Subcommittee for as long as any of us can remember. In fact, the bill
being introduced today, essentially the same bill that passed the
Senate last year, honored the Senator by naming it the Wendell H. Ford
Air Transportation Safety Improvement Act, at the unanimously-endorsed
suggestion of Senator Ted Stevens.
In stepping into Senator Ford's shoes, I aim to ensure not only that
the aviation needs of West Virginia and other rural states and
communities are secured, but also that the needs of the nation and of
my colleagues' constituents are addressed. Certainly there will be
competing interests and sometimes conflicts, but we all must and share
in the fundamental responsibility to maintain safety in the skies, to
support fully the needs of the aviation system and modernization
effort, to ensure that the industry provides the service our
constituents demand and deserve, to facilitate stable funding sources
for our airports, and to be vigilant in opening up markets for our air
carriers worldwide. These are all daunting tasks but we are up to the
challenge, and I look forward to working with the Chairman, and members
of the Committee in crafting an aviation bill that we can all take
pride in.
The bill before you is a place to begin our discussion.
Last year, the Congress was able to pass only a six-month extension
of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), effectively freezing half of
the $1.95 billion allocated to the program. Absent a reauthorization,
our airports and our constituents may lose the ability to upgrade a
runway or start an expansion project that facilitates new business
opportunities for our communities--all because we're having trouble
figuring out a way out of the box we are in. Senator McCain's resolve
notwithstanding, our House counterparts have already favorably reported
a clean, 6-month extension of the program. Even if we can reach
agreement about our immediate needs, I do not want the Senate to pass a
bill only to see the program lapse because our House colleagues refuse
to consider anything other than a clean, short-term extension, before
the March deadline, saving the major issues and a long-term bill for
later in the year. The blame-game that would ensue would only harm the
citizens who sent us here. We can get more slots, we can work to
improve service to small communities, we can make sure the FAA has the
ability to move forward with its modernization plans, but it will not
happen overnight.
Let me give you but one example. Senator Gorton last year offered an
amendment in the Commerce Committee that would have raised the
passenger facility charge (PFC) from $3 per enplanement to $4. I
supported Senator Gorton. I expect that he will again try to raise the
PFC, and the Administration has indicated that they will propose an
increase as well. This is a tough issue, pitting the carriers against
the airports, and letting some claim that it is a new tax. However,
another dollar could get us a lot more capacity at our nation's
airports.
In front of us are the daunting future needs of the aviation system.
All of the projections show that we will have 300 million more
passengers by the year 2009. As much as I would like them all to flow
through West Virginia, I know that all of our airports will face
constraints--money is tight, and a PFC increase will help. How the PFC
is structured, the types of controls possible, and what they are used
for, are all difficult choices, and I want to work with the airports
and the carriers to try to resolve this issue in a balanced way.
The air traffic control system also needs to be revamped. It is a
complex system and each new system requires changes in the cockpit, new
procedures and new avionics--change, therefore, that cannot happen
overnight. GAO recently reported that the FAA is making progress,
changing the way it does business and working with the industry to
figure out what is needed. GAO also reports that the FAA will need $17
billion to complete the modernization effort. Without that degree of
funding, we may not be able to get all we want--new computers, new ways
to move aircraft, and more capacity to make the system safer. According
to the National Civil Aviation Review Commission, unless we address
this problem, we are facing gridlock in the skies.
So, funding of the FAA is a critical, critical matter. I know
Congressman Shuster wants to take the Airport and Airways Trust Fund
off budget, but what I found last year is that the offset for taking
trust funds can be devastating to totally unrelated programs. Right
now, I know that the FAA is supported not only by the Trust Fund
revenues, but also a large contribution from the general fund, which
should be continued in recognition of the important public benefits
provided by aviation.
Finally, I know that the administration will be submitting its
legislative proposal to us within the next few weeks. We need to take a
careful look at those recommendations, and sit down with Secretary
Slater and Administrator Garvey to develop a blueprint for the future.
We have an opportunity this year to make some real changes. I do not
want it to pass us by.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President: As the 106th Congress begins, we have to
address unfinished business first. As many Senators know, the vitally
important legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) passed
in September by a vote of 92-1. For a variety of reasons negotiations
between the House and Senate unfortunately resulted in only a 6-month
extension, expiring at the end of March of this year.
The bill being introduced today is an effort to reauthorize the
programs of the Federal Aviation Administration

[[Page 830]]

for two years. In today's global economy, adequate airport facilities
are a critical component of any economic development program. The FAA's
Airport Improvement Program plays a central role in ensuring that
communities have adequate airport facilities. For FY 1998, the FAA
received $1.9 billion. For FY 1999, the FAA would have received $1.95
billion. Instead, the agency will receive only half of that amount,
unless we pass either a short term bill or a long term extension of the
program. One course we know can work quickly. The other course is more
challenging.
While it is critically important that we work together to pass this
vital legislation, I do want to raise an issue of fundamental
importance. That is truth in budgeting. I have supported taking trust
funds out of the unified Federal budget for many years. This year,
there may be an opportunity to actually make it happen. What is good
for highways is good for aviation. At the end of FY 1998, the Airport
and Airway Trust Fund uncommitted surplus was $4.339 billion, according
to the Congressional Budget Office. It is projected to rise to $13.419
billion by the end of FY 2000 and to $79.325 billion by FY 2008. We are
collecting the taxes, but are not giving people what they expect, what
they paid for, or what they deserve.
We know that the FAA needs money to buy new computers and to use
satellite technology. We can take it from the existing revenues, while
continuing the general fund contribution, or we can limp along, giving
the FAA a portion of what we all know it needs. If we do that there are
consequences, and the fault is ours, not the agency's. It is that
simple.
There are difficult problems facing the 106th Congress. Our
constituents are demanding reasonable fares. Competition can work well
to give us reasonable fares, but it has also created unfortunate
anomalies. Look around the country--in the 1980's, the Department of
Transportation approved every single merger that was proposed. Now we
have a consolidated industry, with the big 3 air carriers accounting
for nearly 55-60% of the market, and the Northwest-Continental alliance
accounting for another 16-17%.
Over the years, I have asked the General Accounting Office to look at
fares at small and medium hubs, places like Charleston, S.C. They
reported that fares were in fact higher, on average at Charleston, at
Greenville, and many other small communities. Last week, the Department
of Transportation reported that Charleston had the 5th highest air
fares in the country. I did not realize we were 5th, a dubious honor,
but I knew they were high. We have a deregulated air transportation
system, dependent upon mega-carriers for service, and beholden to them
on fares. Without a hub system aggregating traffic, small communities
would not receive the service they do today. Yet, the same ability
allows the carriers to place the small towns at their mercy. Our
economy and ability to grow, to attract new businesses, are now highly
dependent upon those same carriers. A low cost carrier may come into a
market, cause a ripple in lowering the fares, and then be driven out.
We had that with Air South. Getting service to one of the four slot-
controlled airports, while important for that route, will not result in
lower air fares for the rest of the markets. The average may drop
overall, but the statistics do not then tell the real story.
Determining how we address this problem will be difficult, but it must
be done.
There also are a number of issues important to aviation employees and
others that must be addressed as we move through the legislative
process. For example, issues involving foreign repair stations must be
examined, and the bill includes a task force to address this issue. FAA
employees must once again be granted access to the Merit System
Protection Board and a Universal Access System must be authorized.
Whistle-blower protection is another important issue. I look forward to
working with Chairman McCain, Chairman Gorton, and Ranking Member
Rockefeller toward meeting these objectives and ensuring that our final
product is a bill that enjoys the broad support of the aviation
community.
The comprehensive bill I am co-sponsoring today may not be completed
for many months, and we may have to pass a short term extension to make
sure that the money for airports does not get tied up. Nevertheless, I
know that the Chairman is anxious to get us all moving, so let the
debate begin and let us move forward expeditiously in order to fund
these critically important programs.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman McCain today
as a cosponsor of the Air Transportation Improvement Act. As Senator
McCain has indicated, this legislation is exactly the same as
legislation approved by the Senate last year by a vote of 99-1.
Passing legislation to extend the Airport Improvement Program needs
to be among our highest priorities for early action in this Congress.
While I do not support every provision of this legislation, it was a
reasonable compromise, which enjoyed nearly unanimous support in the
Senate last year. As pressure continues to increase on our national
aviation system, and with the looming Y2K problem, we need to act
quickly to ensure continued improvements in air safety and efficiency.
One provision of this legislation of particular interest to me, and
many others, is the provision related to the Reagan Washington National
Airport ``perimeter rule.''
Codified in 1986, the National ``perimeter rule'' limits non-stop
flights serving National to destinations within 1250 miles of the
airport. Originally enacted to promote the development of Dulles
Airport as the region's long-haul carrier, the ``perimeter rule'' has
long outlived its original justification, and remains today a
significant barrier to competition in a very competitive aviation
industry.
While the justification for the ``perimeter rule'' has long since
faded, it continues to unfairly limit service to communities outside of
the 1250 mile perimeter. Communities like Las Vegas, a community that
desperately needs additional air service, are denied access to a very
significant airport. In addition, air carriers which happen to operate
hubs located outside of the perimeter face a very serious competitive
disadvantage. On numerous occasions, the General Accounting Office has
identified the ``perimeter rule'' as a barrier to entry in the
Washington, DC air service market.
Simply put, the ``perimeter rule'' should be repealed. Nevadans, and
other Westerners, deserve the same access to our nation's capital city
as those in the East. Continuing this discriminatory, artificial
barrier to competition creates major inequities in our national
transportation system.
The legislation we are introducing today, unfortunately, does not
repeal the ``perimeter rule.'' Instead, like the legislation passed
last year by the Senate, the legislation grants limited exemptions from
the perimeter rule for up to 12 additional slots a day at Washington
National. Last year, in the interest of compromise, I supported this
approach. I continue to be concerned, however, that the 12 new, outside
the perimeter slots, if enacted, will be insufficient to truly address
the competitive problems created by the ``perimeter rule.'' While I
support Chairman McCain's attempt to reach consensus on this issue, I
am hopeful that last year's approach can be further refined to create
additional opportunities for Washington National service from beyond
the 1250 mile perimeter, while at the same time recognizing the
interests of those communities within the current perimeter, as well as
Northern Virginia.
I look forward to working with the Chairman, and other members of the
Commerce Committee, on this important legislation.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 90. A bill to establish reform criteria to permit payment of
United States arrearages in assessed contributions to the United
Nations; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 91. A bill to restrict intelligence sharing with the United
Nations; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

[[Page 831]]

united nations reform legislation

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am submitting two pieces of
legislation to address some of the most critical issues affecting our
relations with the United Nations--the U.S. arrearage in financial
contributions to the United Nations, and sharing of intelligence
information with the U.N.
The first bill, the United Nations Reform Act is a bill that I have
been working on for several years beginning in my former capacity as
chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International
Operations. With the United Nations now entering its second half-
century, the question being raised is not whether the United Nations
can continue its growth for another 50 years, but whether it can
survive as an important international institution in the short term.
I believe we must genuinely restore a bipartisan consensus on the
United Nations within Congress and among the American people. That is
the intent of this legislation, which sets reasonable and achievable
reform criteria for the United Nations, linked to a 5-year repayment
plan for the arrearages that have built up on the U.N. system.
The plan would set up a five-step/five-year process under which the
President would each year have to certify that specific reform
guideposts have been met at the United Nations, permitting payment each
year of one-fifth of outstanding U.S. arrearages.
In the first year, the President would have to certify that a hard
freeze zero nominal growth budget at the United Nations had been
maintained and that budgetary transparency at the world body had been
enhanced through opening up the United Nations to member State auditing
and fully funding the new U.N. inspector general office.
In the second year, the President would have to certify that U.S.
representation had been restored to a key U.N. budgetary oversight body
the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions
[ACABQ].
In the third year, the President would have to certify that a long-
standing U.N. peacekeeping reform goal had been achieved. This reform
would ensure that the United States receives full credit or
reimbursement for the very substantial logistical and in-kind support
our military provides to assessed U.N. peacekeeping missions.
In the fourth year, the President would have to certify that a
significant reform in the United Nations' budget process had been
achieved. This reform would be to divide the U.N. regular budget into
an assessed core budget and a voluntary program budget. The source of
much of the United Nations' problems stems from the fact that the
United Nations' assessed budget is increasingly used for development
programs and other activities that should not be included in our
mandatory dues for membership. This reform can be achieved without a
revision in the U.N. Charter.
Finally, in the fifth year the President would have to certify that a
major U.N. consolidation plan has been approved and implemented. This
plan must entail a significant reduction in staff and an elimination of
the rampant duplication, overlap, and lack of coordination that exists
throughout the U.N. system.
Clearly, there is an urgent need to turn around the United Nations'
dangerous slide into constant crisis, which could ultimately threaten
the organization's usefulness as an important tool for addressing world
problems. I am convinced that this can only be achieved through the
kind of bold reform agenda that is set forth in this legislation.
Mr. President, I believe it is useful for us to look back on the
original purpose of the United Nations, as it was envisioned 51 years
ago. The United Nations was created from the ashes of World War II,
with the hope of avoiding future world-wide conflagrations through
international cooperation. The main focus for this mission was the
Security Council, the only entity empowered under the U.N. Charter to
act on the great questions of world peace. The General Assembly was
intended to be a forum for debate on any issue that any nation wanted
to bring before the assembled nations of the world. The U.N.
Secretariat was to be a small professional staff needed to support the
activities of the Security Council and General Assembly.
The U.N. system was also to conduct specific activities in technical
cooperation, such as those undertaken by the International Civil
Aviation Organization and the International Telecommunications Union.
Finally, the United Nations was to have an important role in responding
to international humanitarian crises. Most critical is the work of the
U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, who today protects millions of the
world's most vulnerable men, women, and children--particularly women
and children, who comprise 80 percent of the world's refugees.
Regrettably, the United Nations system that exists today falls short
of the intentions of its founders. There are two interrelated,
fundamental problems with the U.N. system. One is that there are those
who attempted to use the world organization to advance agendas that
frankly do not reflect world realities. The more the United Nations is
used to transcend what some see as the harsh realities of the world and
its Nation-State system, the less relevant the United Nations becomes
to the real world in which we all live.
Closely related has been the massive and uncoordinated growth of the
United Nations and its specialized agencies. The U.N. General Assembly
and its related bodies in the specialized agencies have used the tool
of the budget to grow the U.N. bureaucracy far beyond what is needed to
respond to real world problems. The small professional staff of the
U.N. Secretariat now approaches 18,000--counting the proliferation of
consultants and contract employees--and the staff of the U.N. system
worldwide now exceeds 53,000.
Too many nations simply do not find a compelling need for efficiency
and budgetary restraint in the U.N. system. Of the U.N.'s 185 member
nations, a near-majority are assessed at the minimum .01 percent rate,
paying essentially nothing toward U.N. budget. The top ten assessed
countries--United States, Japan, Germany, France, Russia, Britain,
Italy, Canada, Spain and Brazil--are billed for almost 80 percent of
the U.N. budget, with the United States paying more than any other
country. In just 10 years of supposed zero-growth budgets, the U.N.'s
budget doubled. Over the last two decades, the U.N.'s budget has
tripled.
There are those who argue that all of the U.N.'s problems come from
the United States. But the United Nation's difficulties with the United
States arise from these deeply rooted problems within the U.N.
structure itself. Even many supporters of the United Nations have
characterized today's U.N. system as bloated, inefficient, duplicative,
and disorganized. For instance, Canadian businessman and six-time U.N.
Under-Secretary-General Maurice Strong has stated that the United
Nations could work better than it does today with less than half as
many people.
The surprising thing is that among serious analysts of the United
Nations there is remarkable agreement on what needs to be done. The
U.N. system needs to be significantly reduced in size and needs true
consolidation among its far-flung, duplicative elements. The budget
process needs similarly dramatic reform. The United Nations needs to
concentrate on a few key achievable missions--security, humanitarian
relief, purely technical cooperation--and refrain from its
proliferating exercises in internal nation-building and grandiose
missions of global norm-setting. All of these basic reform needs have
been addressed in the U.N. reform legislation I am introducing today.
This legislation, I believe, will go a long way toward setting a new
course in our relations with the United Nations. If we in Congress fail
to rise to the challenge; if the U.N. attempts to defend an
unsustainable status quo; if the Administration's new foreign policy
team does not reach out to Congress to achieve a genuine bipartisan
consensus on the need for U.N. reform; if the U.N.'s dangerous slide to
expensive irrelevance continues, then we will

[[Page 832]]

have lost a unique opportunity for reform. If this should happen, it is
not at all clear to me whether such an opportunity will soon return.
As a complement to my U.N. reform bill, I am also introducing this
U.N.-related bill which I sponsored in the last two Congresses to
protect U.S. intelligence information which is shared with the United
Nations or any of its affiliated organizations by requiring that
procedures for protecting intelligence sources and methods are in place
at the United Nations that are at least as stringent as those
maintained by countries with which the United States regularly shares
similar types of information. This requirement may be waived by the
President for national security purposes but only on a case by case
basis and only when all possible measures for protecting the
information have been taken.
This legislation grew out of my concern about reports of breaches of
U.S. classified material by the United Nations in 1993, 1994, and in
1995 when the United Nations pulled out of Somalia. I am pleased to
note that some attention has been paid by this body to the problems
that can result when U.S. intelligence information is shared with
international bodies. Condition 5 of the resolution of ratification for
the Chemical Weapons Convention, which protects U.S. intelligence
shared with the Organization for the Protection of Chemical Weapons,
was based on my intelligence-sharing legislation.
This legislation, I believe, will go a long way toward addressing the
problems we have witnessed in the past concerning intelligence
information sharing with the U.N.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider the legislation I am
introducing today as the best course for restoring the bipartisan
consensus in this country on the United Nations. I urge my colleagues
to join me in supporting this legislation.
______

By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Thomas, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Roth, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gramm, Mr.
Nickles, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Frist, Mr. Grams, Mr. Smith or
Oregon, Mr. McCain, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lugar, and Ms. Collins):
S. 92. A bill to provide for biennial budget process and a biennial
appropriations process and to enhance oversight and the performance of
the Federal Government; to the Committee on the Budget and the
Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of
August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee reports, the
other Committee have thirty days to report or be discharged.

BIENNIAL BUDGETING AND APPROPRIATIONS ACT

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thompson, the
distinguished Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator
Lieberman, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs
Committee and 13 other Senators, I rise to introduce the ``Biennial
Budget and Appropriations Act,'' a bill to convert the budget and
appropriations process to a two-year cycle and to enhance oversight of
federal programs.
Mr. President, our most recent experience with the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act shows the
need for a biennial appropriations and budget process. That one bill
clearly demonstrated Congress is incapable of completing the budget,
authorizing, and appropriations process on an annual basis. That 4,000
paged bill contained 8 of the regular appropriations bills, $9 billion
in revenue provisions, $21.4 billion in ``emergency'' spending, and 40
miscellaneous funding and authorization provisions.
Congress should now act to streamline the system by moving to a two-
year, or biennial, budget process. This is the most important reform we
can enact to streamline the budget process, to make the Senate a more
deliberative and effective institution, and to make us more accountable
to the American people.
Mr. President, moving to a biennial budget and appropriations process
enjoys very broad support. President Clinton supports this bill.
Presidents Reagan and Bush also proposed a biennial appropriations and
budget cycle. Leon Panetta, who served as White House Chief of Staff,
OMB Director, and House Budget Committee Chairman, has advocated a
biennial budget since the late 1970s. Former OMB and CBO Director Alice
Rivlin has called for a biennial budget the past two decades. Both of
the Senate Leaders support this legislation. And, at the end of last
year, 37 Senators wrote our two Senate Leaders calling for quick action
to pass legislation to convert the budget and appropriations process to
a two-year cycle.
The most recent comprehensive studies of the federal government and
the Congress have recommended this reform. The Vice President's
National Performance Review and the 1993 Joint Committee on the
Reorganization of Congress both recommended a biennial appropriations
and budget cycle.
A biennial budget will dramatically improve the current budget
process. The current annual budget process is redundant, inefficient,
and destined for failure each year. Look at what we struggle to
complete each year under the current annual process. The annual budget
process consumes three years: one year for the Administration to
prepare the President's budget, another year for the Congress to put
the budget into law, and the final year to actually execute the budget.
Today, I want to focus just on the Congressional budget process, the
process of annually passing a budget resolution, authorization
legislation, and 13 appropriation bills. The record clearly shows that
last year's experience was nothing new. Under the annual process, we
consistently fail to complete action on the 13 appropriations bills, to
authorize programs, and to meet our deadlines.
Since 1950 Congress has only twice met the fiscal year deadline for
completion of all thirteen individual appropriations bills to fully
fund the government.
The Congressional Budget Office's recent report on unauthorized
appropriations shows that for fiscal year 1999, 118 laws authorizing
appropriations have expired. These laws cover over one-third or $102.1
billion of appropriations for non-defense programs. Another 10 laws
authorizing non-defense appropriations will expire at the end of fiscal
year 1997, representing $10.4 billion more in unauthorized non-defense
programs.
We have met the statutory deadline to complete a budget resolution
only three times since 1974. In 1995, we broke the Senate record for
the most roll call votes cast in a day on a budget reconciliation bill.
The Senate conducted 39 consecutive roll call votes that day, beginning
at 9:29 in the morning and finishing up at 11:59 that night.
While we have made a number of improvements in the budget process,
the current annual process is redundant and inefficient. The Senate has
the same debate, amendments and votes on the same issue three or four
times a year--once on the budget resolution, again on the authorization
bill, and finally on the appropriations bill.
I recently asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to update
and expand upon an analysis of the amount of time we spend on the
budget. CRS looked at all votes on appropriations, revenue,
reconciliation, and debt limit measures as well as budget resolutions.
CRS then examined any other vote dealing with budgetary levels, Budget
Act waivers, or votes pertaining to the budget process. Beginning with
1980, budget related votes started dominating the work of the Senate.
In 1996, 73 percent of the votes the Senate took were related to the
budget.
If we cannot adequately focus on our duties because we are constantly
debating the budget in the authorization, budget, and appropriations
process, just imagine how confused the American public is about what we
are doing. The result is that the public does not understand what we
are doing and it breeds cynicism about our government.
Under the legislation I am introducing today, the President would
submit a two-year budget and Congress would consider a two-year budget
resolution and 13 two-year appropriation

[[Page 833]]

bills during the first session of a Congress. The second session of the
Congress would be devoted to consideration of authorization bills and
for oversight of government agencies.
Most of the arguments against a biennial budget process will come
from those who claim we cannot predict or plan on a two year basis. For
most of the budget, we do not actually budget on an annual basis. Our
entitlement and revenue laws are under permanent law and Congress does
not change these law on an annual basis. The only component of the
budget that is set in law annually are the appropriated, or
discretionary, accounts.
Mr. President, the most predictable category of the budget are these
appropriated, or discretionary, accounts of the federal government. I
recently asked CBO to update an analysis of discretionary spending to
determine those programs that had unpredictable or volatile funding
needs. CBO found that only 4 percent of total discretionary funding
fell into this category. Most of this spending is associated with
international activities or emergencies. Because most of this funding
cannot be predicted on an annual basis, a biennial budget is no less
deficient than the current annual process. My bill does not preclude
supplemental appropriations necessary to meet these emergency or
unanticipated requirements.
Mr. President, in 1993 I had the honor to serve as co-Chairman on a
Joint Committee that studied the operations of the Congress. Senator
Byrd testified before that Committee that the increasing demands put on
us as Senators has led to our ``fractured attention.'' We simply are
too busy to adequately focus on the people's business. This legislation
is designed to free up time and focus our attention, particularly with
respect to the oversight of federal programs and activities.
Frankly, the limited oversight we are now doing is not as good as it
should be. We have a total of 34 House and Senate standing authorizing
committees and these committees are increasingly crowded out of the
legislative process. Under a biennial budget, the second year of the
biennium will be exclusively devoted to examining federal programs and
developing authorization legislation. The calendar will be free of the
budget and appropriations process, giving these committees the time and
opportunity to provide oversight, review and legislate changes to
federal programs. Oversight and the authorization should be an ongoing
process, but a biennial appropriations process will provide greater
opportunity for legislators to concentrate on programs and policies in
the second year.
We also build on the oversight process by incorporating the new
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 into
the biennial budget process. The primary objective of this law is to
force the federal government to produce budgets focused on outcomes,
not just dollars spent.

Mr. President, a biennial budget cannot make the difficult decisions
that must be made in budgeting, but it can provide the tools necessary
to make much better decisions. But, under the current annual budget
process we are constantly spending the taxpayers' money instead of
focusing on how best and most efficiently we should spend the
taxpayers' money. By moving to a biennial budget cycle, we can plan,
budget, and appropriate more effectively, strengthen oversight and
watchdog functions, and improve the efficiency of government agencies.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a description of the
Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act be made a part of the Record
along with a copy of the bill.

There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 92

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 ``Biennial Budgeting and
Appropriations Act''.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF TIMETABLE.

Section 300 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 631) is amended to read as follows:

``timetable

``Sec. 300. (a) In General.--Except as provided by
subsection (b), the timetable with respect to the
congressional budget process for any Congress (beginning with
the One Hundred Seventh Congress) is as follows:

``First Session
``On or before: Action to be completed:
First Monday in February.................. President submits budget
recommendations.
February 15............................... Congressional Budget Office
submits report to Budget
Committees.
Not later than 6 weeks after budget Committees submit views and
submission. estimates to Budget
Committees.
April 1................................... Budget Committees report
concurrent resolution on
the biennial budget.
May 15.................................... Congress completes action on
concurrent resolution on
the biennial budget.
May 15.................................... Biennial appropriation bills
may be considered in the
House.
June 10................................... House Appropriations
Committee reports last
biennial appropriation
bill.
June 30................................... House completes action on
biennial appropriation
bills.
August 1.................................. Congress completes action on
reconciliation legislation.
October 1................................. Biennium begins.
``Second Session
``On or before: Action to be completed:
February 15............................... President submits budget
review.
Not later than 6 weeks after President Congressional Budget Office
submits budget review. submits report to Budget
Committees.
The last day of the session............... Congress completes action on
bills and resolutions
authorizing new budget
authority for the
succeeding biennium.

``(b) Special Rule.--In the case of any first session of
Congress that begins in any year immediately following a leap
year and during which the term of a President (except a
President who succeeds himself) begins, the following dates
shall supersede those set forth in subsection (a):

``First Session
``On or before: Action to be completed:
First Monday in April..................... President submits budget
recommendations.
April 20.................................. Committees submit views and
estimates to Budget
Committees.
May 15.................................... Budget Committees report
concurrent resolution on
the biennial budget.
June 1.................................... Congress completes action on
concurrent resolution on
the biennial budget.
July 1.................................... Biennial appropriation bills
may be considered in the
House.
July 20................................... House completes action on
biennial appropriation
bills.
August 1.................................. Congress completes action on
reconciliation legislation.
October 1................................. Biennium begins.''.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND
IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974.

[[Page 834]]

(6) Economic assumptions.--Section 301(g)(1) of such Act (2
U.S.C. 632(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``for a fiscal
year'' and inserting ``for a biennium''.
(7) Section heading.--The section heading of section 301 of
such Act is amended by striking ``ANNUAL'' and inserting
``BIENNIAL''.
(8) Table of contents.--The item relating to section 301 in
the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of such Act
is amended by striking ``Annual'' and inserting ``Biennial''.
(d) Committee Allocations.--Section 302 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``for the first fiscal
year of the resolution,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal
year in the biennium, for at least each of 4 ensuing fiscal
years,'';
(2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``for a fiscal year''
and inserting ``for a biennium'';
(3) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``first fiscal year''
and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennum'';
(4) in subsection (f)(2)(A), by striking ``first fiscal
year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium'';
and
(5) in subsection (g)(1)(A), by striking ``April'' and
inserting ``May''.
(e) Section 303 Point of Order.--
(1) In general.--Section 303(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C.
634(a)) is amended by striking ``first fiscal year'' and
inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium''.
(2) Exceptions in the house.--Section 303(b)(1) of such Act
(2 U.S.C. 634(b)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the budget year''
and inserting ``the biennium''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the fiscal year''
and inserting ``the biennium''.
(3) Application to the senate.--Section 303(c)(1) of such
Act (2 U.S.C. 634(c)) is amended by--
(A) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium'';
and
(B) striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year
of that biennium''.
(f) Permissible Revisions of Concurrent Resolutions on the
Budget.--Section 304(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 635) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``fiscal year'' the first two places it
appears and inserting ``biennium'';
(2) by striking ``for such fiscal year''; and
(3) by inserting before the period ``for such biennium''.
(g) Procedures for Consideration of Budget Resolutions.--
Section 305(a)(3) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 636(b)(3)) is amended
by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''.
(h) Completion of House Action on Appropriation Bills.--
Section 307 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 638) is amended--
(1) by striking ``each year'' and inserting ``each odd-
numbered year'';
(2) by striking ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial'';
(3) by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium'';
and
(4) by striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each odd-
numbered year''.
(i) Completion of Action on Regular Appropriation Bills.--
Section 309 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 640) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``of any odd-numbered calendar year''
after ``July'';
(2) by striking ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''; and
(3) by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''.
(j) Reconciliation Process.--Section 310(a) of such Act (2
U.S.C. 641(a)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``any fiscal year'' and inserting ``any biennium''; and
(2) in paragraph (1) by striking ``such fiscal year'' each
place it appears and inserting ``any fiscal year covered by
such resolution''.
(k) Section 311 Point of Order.--
(1) In the house.--Section 311(a)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C.
642(a)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``for a fiscal year'' and inserting ``for a
biennium'';
(B) by striking ``the first fiscal year'' each place it
appears and inserting ``either fiscal year of the biennium'';
and
(C) by striking ``that first fiscal year'' and inserting
``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
(2) In the senate.--Section 311(a)(2) of such Act is
amended--
(A) by striking ``for the first fiscal year'' and inserting
``for either fiscal year of the biennium''; and
(B) by striking ``that first fiscal year'' each place it
appears and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
(3) Social security levels.--Section 311(a)(3) of such Act
is amended by--
(A) striking ``for the first fiscal year'' and inserting
``each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
(B) striking ``that fiscal year'' and inserting ``each
fiscal year in the biennium''.
(l) MDA Point of Order.--Section 312(c) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 643) is amended--
(1) by striking ``for a fiscal year'' and inserting ``for a
biennium'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``first fiscal year'' and
inserting ``either fiscal year in the biennium'';
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``that fiscal year'' and
inserting ``either fiscal year in the biennium''; and
(4) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking
``that fiscal year'' and inserting ``the applicable fiscal
year''.

SEC. 4. PAY-AS-YOU-GO IN THE SENATE.

Subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 202(b)(2) of
House Concurrent Resolution 67 (104th Congress) are amended
to read as follows:
``(A) The period of the biennium covered by the most
recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
``(B) The period of the first six fiscal years covered by
the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the
budget.
``(C) The period of the four fiscal years following the
first six fiscal years covered by the most recently adopted
concurrent resolution on the budget.''.

SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE.

[[Page 835]]

fiscal year of the biennium, as the case may be,''; and
(3) by striking ``that year'' and inserting ``for each year
of the biennium''.
(e) Capital Investment Analysis.--Section 1105(e)(1) of
title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking
``ensuing fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium to which
such budget relates''.
(f) Supplemental Budget Estimates and Changes.--
(1) In general.--Section 1106(a) of title 31, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by--
(i) striking ``Before July 16 of each year,'' and inserting
``Before February 15 of each even numbered year,''; and
(ii) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium'';
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``that fiscal year'' and
inserting ``each fiscal year in such biennium'';
(C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``4 fiscal years
following the fiscal year'' and inserting ``4 fiscal years
following the biennium''; and
(D) in paragraph (3), by striking ``fiscal year'' and
inserting ``biennium''.
(2) Changes.--Section 1106(b) of title 31, United States
Code, is amended by--
(A) striking ``the fiscal year'' and inserting ``each
fiscal year in the biennium'';
(B) striking ``April 11 and July 16 of each year'' and
inserting ``February 15 of each even-numbered year''; and
(C) striking ``July 16'' and inserting ``February 15 of
each even-numbered year.''.
(g) Current Programs and Activities Estimates.--
(1) In general.--Section 1109(a) of title 31, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``On or before the first Monday after
January 3 of each year (on or before February 5 in 1986)''
and inserting ``At the same time the budget required by
section 1105 is submitted for a biennium''; and
(B) by striking ``the following fiscal year'' and inserting
``each fiscal year of such period''.
(2) Joint economic committee.--Section 1109(b) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``March 1 of each
year'' and inserting ``within 6 weeks of the President's
budget submission for each odd-numbered year (or, if
applicable, as provided by section 300(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974)''.
(h) Year-Ahead Requests for Authorizing Legislation.--
Section 1110 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by--
(1) striking ``May 16'' and inserting ``March 31''; and
(2) striking ``year before the year in which the fiscal
year begins'' and inserting ``calendar year preceding the
calendar year in which the biennium begins''.

SEC. 6. TWO-YEAR APPROPRIATIONS; TITLE AND STYLE OF
APPROPRIATIONS ACTS.

Section 105 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``Sec. 105. Title and style of appropriations Acts

``(a) The style and title of all Acts making appropriations
for the support of the Government shall be as follows: `An
Act making appropriations (here insert the object) for each
fiscal year in the biennium of fiscal years (here insert the
fiscal years of the biennium).'.
``(b) All Acts making regular appropriations for the
support of the Government shall be enacted for a biennium and
shall specify the amount of appropriations provided for each
fiscal year in such period.
``(c) For purposes of this section, the term `biennium' has
the same meaning as in section 3(11) of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
622(11)).''.

SEC. 7. MULTIYEAR AUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``authorizations of appropriations

``Sec. 316. (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order
in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider--
``(1) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that authorizes appropriations for a period
of less than 2 fiscal years, unless the program, project, or
activity for which the appropriations are authorized will
require no further appropriations and will be completed or
terminated after the appropriations have been expended; and
``(2) in any odd-numbered year, any authorization or
revenue bill or joint resolution until Congress completes
action on the biennial budget resolution, all regular
biennial appropriations bills, and all reconciliation bills.
``(b) Applicability.--In the Senate, subsection (a) shall
not apply to--
``(1) any measure that is privileged for consideration
pursuant to a rule or statute;
``(2) any matter considered in Executive Session; or
``(3) an appropriations measure or reconciliation bill.''.
(b) Amendment to Table of Contents.--The table of contents
set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding after
the item relating to section 313 the following new item:

``Sec. 316. Authorizations of appropriations.''.

SEC. 8. GOVERNMENT PLANS ON A BIENNIAL BASIS.

(a) Strategic Plans.--Section 306 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``September 30, 1997''
and inserting ``September 30, 2000'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``at least every three years'' and
inserting ``at least every 4 years''; and
(B) by striking ``five years forward'' and inserting ``six
years forward''; and
(3) in subsection (c), by inserting a comma after
``section'' the second place it appears and adding
``including a strategic plan submitted by September 30, 1997
meeting the requirements of subsection (a)''.
(b) Budget Contents and Submission to Congress.--Paragraph
(28) of section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``beginning with fiscal year 1999, a''
and inserting ``beginning with fiscal year 2002, a
biennial''.
(c) Performance Plans.--Section 1115 of title 31, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter before paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``section 1105(a)(29)'' and inserting
``section 1105(a)(28)''; and
(ii) by striking ``an annual'' and inserting ``a
biennial'';
(B) in paragraph (1) by inserting after ``program
activity'' the following: ``for both years 1 and 2 of the
biennial plan'';
(C) in paragraph (5) by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon,
(D) in paragraph (6) by striking the period and inserting a
semicolon; and inserting ``and'' after the inserted
semicolon; and
(E) by adding after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) cover a 2-year period beginning with the first fiscal
year of the next biennial budget cycle.'';
(2) in subsection (d) by striking ``annual'' and inserting
``biennial''; and
(3) in paragraph (6) of subsection (f) by striking
``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''.
(d) Managerial Accountability and Flexibility.--Section
9703 of title 31, United States Code, relating to managerial
accountability, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the first sentence by striking ``annual''; and
(B) by striking ``section 1105(a)(29)'' and inserting
``section 1105(a)(28)'';
(2) in subsection (e)--
(A) in the first sentence by striking ``one or'' before
``years'';
(B) in the second sentence by striking ``a subsequent
year'' and inserting ``for a subsequent 2-year period''; and
(C) in the third sentence by striking ``three'' and
inserting ``four''.
(e) Pilot Projects for Performance Budgeting.--Section 1119
of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) of subsection (d), by striking
``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''; and
(2) in subsection (e), by striking ``annual'' and inserting
``biennial''.
(f) Strategic Plans.--Section 2802 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``September 30, 1997''
and inserting ``September 30, 2000'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``at least every three
years'' and inserting ``at least every 4 years'';
(3) by striking ``five years forward'' and inserting ``six
years forward''; and
(4) in subsection (c), by inserting a comma after
``section'' the second place it appears and inserting
``including a strategic plan submitted by September 30, 1997
meeting the requirements of subsection (a)''.
(g) Performance Plans.--Section 2803(a) of title 39, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``an
annual'' and inserting ``a biennial'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``program
activity'' the following: ``for both years 1 and 2 of the
biennial plan'';
(3) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(4) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(5) by adding after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) cover a 2-year period beginning with the first fiscal
year of the next biennial budget cycle.''.
(h) Committee Views of Plans and Reports.--Section 301(d)
of the Congressional Budget Act (2 U.S.C. 632(d)) is amended
by adding at the end ``Each committee of the Senate or the
House of Representatives shall review the strategic plans,
performance plans, and performance reports, required under
section 306 of title 5, United States Code, and sections 1115
and 1116 of title 31, United States Code, of all agencies
under the jurisdiction of the committee. Each committee may
provide its views on such plans or reports to the Committee
on the Budget of the applicable House.''.
(i) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
take effect on March 1, 2000.

[[Page 836]]

(2) Agency actions.--Effective on and after the date of
enactment of this Act, each agency shall take such actions as
necessary to prepare and submit any plan or report in
accordance with the amendments made by this Act.

SEC. 9. BIENNIAL APPROPRIATIONS BILLS.

(a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:

``consideration of biennial appropriations bills

``Sec. 317. It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives or the Senate in any odd-numbered year to
consider any regular bill providing new budget authority or a
limitation on obligations under the jurisdiction of any of
the subcommittees of the Committees on Appropriations for
only the first fiscal year of a biennium, unless the program,
project, or activity for which the new budget authority or
obligation limitation is provided will require no additional
authority beyond 1 year and will be completed or terminated
after the amount provided has been expended.''.
(b) Amendment to Table of Contents.--The table of contents
set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding after
the item relating to section 313 the following new item:

``Sec. 317. Consideration of biennial appropriations bills.''.

SEC. 10. REPORT ON TWO-YEAR FISCAL PERIOD.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Director of OMB shall--
(1) determine the impact and feasibility of changing the
definition of a fiscal year and the budget process based on
that definition to a 2-year fiscal period with a biennial
budget process based on the 2-year period; and
(2) report the findings of the study to the Committees on
the Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in sections 8 and 10
and subsection (b), this Act and the amendments made by this
Act shall take effect on January 1, 2001, and shall apply to
budget resolutions and appropriations for the biennium
beginning with fiscal year 2002.
(b) Authorizations for the Biennium.--For purposes of
authorizations for the biennium beginning with fiscal year
2002, the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by
this Act relating to 2-year authorizations shall take effect
January 1, 2000.
____

Description of the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act

The Domenici bill would convert the annual budget,
appropriations, and authorization process to a biennial, or
two-year, cycle.

First Year: Budget and Appropriations

Requires the President to submit a two-year budget at the
beginning of the first session of a Congress. The President's
budget would cover each year in the biennium and planning
levels for the four out-years. Converts the ``Mid-session
Review'' into a ``Mid-biennium review''. The President would
submit his ``mid-biennium review'' at the beginning of the
second year.
Requires Congress to adopt a two-year budget resolution and
a reconciliation bill (if necessary). Instead of enforcing
the first fiscal year and the sum of the five years set out
in the budget resolution, the bill provides that the budget
resolution establish binding levels for each year in the
biennium and the sum of the six-year period. The bill
modifies the time frames in the Senate ten-year pay-as-you-go
point of order to provide that legislation could not increase
the deficit for the biennium, the sum of the first six years,
and the sum of the last 4 years.
Requires Congress to enact a two-year appropriations bills
during the first session of Congress. Requires Congress to
enact 13 appropriations bills covering a two-year period and
provides a new majority point of order against appropriations
bills that fail to cover two years.
Makes budgeting and appropriating the priority for the
first session of a Congress. The bill provides a majority
point of order against consideration of authorization and
revenue legislation until the completion of the biennial
budget resolution, reconciliation legislation (if necessary)
and the thirteen biennial appropriations bills. An exception
is made for certain ``must-do'' measures.

Second Year: Authorization Legislation and Enhanced Oversight

Devotes the second session of a Congress to consideration
of biennial authorization bills and oversight of federal
programs. The bill provides a majority point of order against
authorization and revenue legislation that cover less than
two years except those measures limited to temporary programs
or activities lasting less than two years.
Modifies the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
to incorporate the government performance planning and
reporting process into the two-year budget cycle to enhance
oversight of federal programs.
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the
Results Act) requires federal agencies to develop strategic
plans, performance plans, and performance reports. The law
requires agencies to establish performance goals and to
report on their actual performance in meeting these goals.
The Results Act requires federal agencies to consult with
congressional committees as they develop their plans.
Beginning in 1997, the law will require all federal agencies
to submit their strategic plans to the Office of Management
and Budget, along with their budget submissions, by September
30 of each year. Finally, the Results Act requires the
President to include a performance plan for the entire
government as part of the budget submission, beginning with
the FY 1999 budget.
The Domenici bill modifies the Results Act to place it on a
two-year cycle along with the budget process. The bill also
requires the authorizing committees to review the strategic
plans, performance plans, and performance reports of federal
agencies and to submit their views, if any, on these plans
and reports as part of their views and estimates submissions
to the budget committees.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think it is great for us to get started
with our work on the floor. We have been working, of course, in
organizing our committees, drafting our bills, getting prepared--as a
matter of fact, probably earlier than usual, despite the trial that is
going on here. So it is good to get started.
I am pleased that our party has also an agenda. We will be talking
about Social Security, of course. I think a great many changes need to
be made there to ensure that this program continues, not only for those
now drawing benefits but for those who will in the future.
We will be talking about education, seeking to get Federal help
directly to the classrooms.
We will be talking about strengthening the military, which I think is
very important and must be done.
I think tax reduction and tax reform is very high on our list of
priorities. Certainly, we will be working on that.
Health care, of course, will be part of what we talk about.
And each of us, in addition to those, will have other issues.
So I rise to talk a moment this morning about biannual budgeting. It
is a real pleasure for me to join the chairman of the Budget Committee,
Senator Domenici, and chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee,
Senator Thompson, to introduce a bill that will create a 2-year
budgeting appropriations process. We worked long and hard on that
issue. I have been working on it for some time, largely because it is
my belief that the current budgeting process is broken.
After last year's massive omnibus appropriations bill, which was a
debacle, of course, I argue that the budget process needs to be
changed. We spend entirely too much time, both in the Congress and in
the executive branch, on budget issues.
Since the most recent budget process reform in 1974, Congress has
consistently failed to complete action on the budget by the time of the
start of the fiscal year and, as a result, have increasingly relied on
omnibus measures that come in at the end.
Last year's experience ought to ensure that we do, in fact, need a
change. In fact, only 4 of the 13 regular appropriations bills were
passed for funding for 10 cabinet-level departments, and the rest was
crammed into a 24-hour budget session, which does not work well. Not a
new idea. As a matter of fact, since 1950, Congress has failed on the
13 individual appropriations bills to be funded in every year except
2--only 2 years did we succeed in doing that. We routinely fund
unauthorized expenditures and appropriations. The idea is to have an
Authorization Committee and an Appropriations Committee. The
authorization is made and then it is funded. That has not been the
case. We need to change that.
In response to that, I introduced, in the 104th Congress, legislation
that would create a biannual budget, and I am very pleased to join in
with Senators Domenici and Thompson in offering this bill this year.
This legislation does not eliminate the budgeting process. Each step
serves an important role and will continue to do that. However,
basically, we would simply be doing it for 2 years rather than 1,
having the off year for oversight.
I happen to think that one of the principal obligations of the
Congress is

[[Page 837]]

oversight of the kinds of programs that have been funded by this
Congress. We have not had the opportunity to do that. We have extended
debate on appropriations throughout almost the entire year in each year
of the 2-year periods. Almost all of us come from States where a 2-year
cycle program is used and is successful. It is not a brand new idea and
it can be done. I am sure there will be resistance, largely from the
appropriators, who rather enjoy the power plays that go on each year
through the appropriations process. But I believe in the old saying
that we have often heard that ``if you expect different results, you
have to change the process.''
The results we have had are not the kinds of results that most people
would like to have. I think that it is high time for us to change the
process, and I look forward very much to that.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is an honor to once again join the
Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and the Chairman of
the Government Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson in introducing
legislation to create a two year budget and appropriations process.
We've all worked long and hard on this issue and I am hopeful that we
can finally enact this common sense reform this year.
I've been saying for awhile that the current budget process is
breaking down. After last year's debacle with the massive omnibus
appropriations bill, I'd argue that the budget process is broken.
Congress and the executive branch spend entirely too much time on
budget issues. Since the most recent budget process reform in 1974,
Congress has consistently failed to complete action on the Federal
budget before the start of the fiscal year and, as a result, has
increasingly relied on omnibus spending measures to fund the Federal
Government. Last year's experience should dispel any lingering doubts
about whether the current process is broken. In fact, only four of the
13 regular appropriations bills were passed before funding for 10
Cabinet-level departments was crammed into one bill debated over just a
24 hour period.
The budget resolution, reconciliation bill and appropriations bill
continue to become more time-consuming. In the process, authorizing
committees are being squeezed out of the schedule. There are too many
votes on the same issues and too much duplication. In the end, this
time could be better spent conducting vigorous oversight of Federal
programs which currently go unchecked.
In response to these problems, in the 104th Congress I introduced
legislation that would create a biennial budget process. I am pleased
to continue this effort by joining Senator Domenici and Senator
Thompson in offering this bill. It will rectify many of the problems
regarding the current process by promoting timely action on budget
legislation. In addition, it will eliminate much of the redundancy in
the current budget process. This legislation does not eliminate any of
the current budget processes--each step serves an important role in
congressional deliberations. However, by making decisions once every 2
years instead of annually, the burden should be significantly reduced.
Perhaps most importantly, biennial budgeting will provide more time
for effective congressional oversight, which will help reduce the size
and scope of the Federal Government. Congress simply needs more time to
review existing Federal programs in order to determine priorities in
our drive to balance the budget.
Another benefit of a 2 year budget cycle is its effect on long term
planning. A biennial budget will allow the executive branch and State
and local governments, all of which depend on congressional
appropriations, to do a better job making plans for long term projects.
Two year budgets are not a novel idea. Nor will biennial budgeting
cure all of the Federal Government's ills. However, separating the
budget session from the oversight session works well across the country
in our state legislatures.
This legislation is a solid first step toward reforming the
congressional budget process. This concept enjoys strong bipartisan
support. It is supported by the Clinton administration, Majority Leader
Lott and Minority Leader Daschle. In addition, 36 other Senators joined
Senators Domenici, Thompson and I in sending a letter last year to
Senate leaders calling for quick action on this bipartisan reform early
this year. I am hopeful that effort and this bill will be a catalyst
for swift action on this common sense, good government reform.
______

By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gorton, Mr.
Abraham, Mr. Frist, Mr. Grams, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Thomas,
and Mr. Kyl):
S. 93. A bill to improve and strengthen the budget process; to the
Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions
that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to
report or be discharged.

BUDGET ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1999

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1999. The time has come to conform our budget laws
and procedures to a new fiscal environment. The Congressional Budget
and Impoundment Control Act was enacted 25 years ago. Amendments to the
Act, including the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation in 1985,
established new enforcement procedures that were further expanded and
modified in the 1990 budget agreement. Those laws and procedures have
served us well. In combination with a strong economy and robust revenue
growth, not only have we balanced the Federal budget, we will shortly
produce a surplus even excluding the current balances generated by
Social Security program.
Laws and procedures developed over the last 25 years for a fiscal
environment of deficits, cannot be appropriate for a fiscal environment
of surpluses.
As an example, while the President a year ago in his State of the
Union Address pledged to reserve ``every penny'' of the Social Security
surpluses for the reform of that program, he and the Congress did not
live up to that pledge last year. In one piece of legislation last
fall, we spent $21.4 billion of these surpluses for so-called
``emergencies''. Moreover, in order to get appropriations bills signed
into law, we relied on innovative financing mechanisms, a charitable
characterization, to meet the spending limits. The fact that we will
have difficulty meeting these limits in the coming year is not the
fault of the limits that we agreed to on a bipartisan basis in 1997, it
will be largely due to the reluctance to face the hard choices in
appropriations last year.
This is not to say we have not accomplished a great deal in recent
years. Since 1994, we curbed the rate of growth in spending through the
enactment of legislation such as Freedom to Farm, welfare reform, and
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. While I am very proud that we have
stemmed the growth rate in federal spending, we did not balance the
budget by actually cutting spending. We did stop the explosive and
unsustainable rate of growth in spending that begun in the 1960's with
the help of the budget laws and amendments of the past 25 years. But
even so, it should be clear that the current balanced budget is largely
due to an unexpected growth in federal revenues due to our robust
economy.
Beginning in 1990, we enjoyed the peace dividend with the end of the
Cold War. The taxpayer did not see a dollar of that dividend. In 1998,
we saw the balanced budget dividend, and we should produce a balanced
budget dividend excluding the transactions of the Social Security trust
fund in the very near future. It is time for the American taxpayer to
collect a dividend.
In my view, the current budget process allows us to spend the
taxpayer's money more easily than it is to let the American taxpayer
keep what he has earned. We will collect more in taxes this year as a
percentage of the economy than we have in any year since World War II.
We need to find a way to change our budget process in such a manner
to stop the erosion on the spending side,

[[Page 838]]

while finding a way to return at least something to the American
taxpayer.
Some will argue that we should abandon all of our budget laws and
find a way to cut taxes at any cost. Others will demagogue Social
Security and hope it can stop any tax relief and fight any changes to
tighten controls on spending. We need to find a way to steer the middle
course. We should reduce taxes, but in a way that ensures we set aside
the entire Social Security surplus for legislation that restores the
long-term solvency of this program.
With these objectives in mind, I am introducing today the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1999. This bill would:
(1) streamline the budget process and enhance the oversight of
Federal programs;
(2) curb the abuse of emergency spending;
(3) set aside and protect the Social Security surplus until we can
ensure that Social Security will be there for every generation;
(4) make way for tax relief that does not tap Social Security
surpluses;
(5) provide that we never again incur a government shutdown because
of our failure to enact appropriations.
Title I contains the text of the Biennial Budgeting and
Appropriations Act, which I am also introducing as separate legislation
today. My remarks on that bill go into some detail on the need for this
reform. In my view a biennial appropriations and budget process will
streamline the budget process, enhance oversight, and allow Congress to
review the budget and federal programs in a more deliberative and
efficient manner.
Title II would reform the manner in which we treat emergency
spending. In 1990, we devised the current system of caps on
appropriated spending and the ``pay-as-you-go'' requirement for all
other legislation. When we were developing these procedures, the
distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, had the
foresight to recognize that we needed an exception for emergency
legislation.
Since President Clinton made his pledge last January that every penny
of the surplus should be reserved for Social Security reform, $27
billion in ``emergency'' spending has come out of the surplus. We could
not find $1 out of the budget surplus to return to the American
taxpayer, but we found $27 billion of ``emergency'' spending in one
year to take out of the surplus for a host of programs, many of which
are difficult to classify as an emergency.
Senator Byrd was correct in 1990. We need an exception for emergency
spending and the bill I introduced today retains that exception.
However, this bill says if something is truly an emergency, it should
have the support of 60 Senators. Remember, the President said that
every penny of the surplus--without exception--should be reserved for
Social Security. I feel there should be a means to use a portion of the
surplus for emergency spending, but only in extraordinary
circumstances. Sixty votes in the Senate is not too much to ask.
Title III modifies the ``pay-as-you-go'' requirements to make clear
that on-budget surpluses can be used to offset the cost of legislation.
Current law is vague with respect to the application of the pay-as-you-
go procedures when there is an on-budget surplus. Title III modifies
the law and the Senate rule to make clear that the surpluses generated
by Social Security are not available for tax or direct spending
legislation. However, the on-budget surplus, the surplus excluding
Social Security, would be available for such legislation.
Title IV contains Senator McCain's legislation, the Government
Shutdown Prevention Act, frequently referred to as an automatic
continuing resolution (CR). This title provides that agencies will be
automatically funded at the lower of the previous year's level or the
level proposed by the President.
Title V is designated to end what has been characterized as the
``vote-athon'' on budget resolutions and reconciliation bills. This
title is very similar to an amendment that Senator Byrd offered to the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which was later dropped during conference.
The manner in which the Senate currently considers budget resolutions
and reconciliation bills is demeaning because of two loopholes in the
current law regarding the consideration of budget resolutions and
reconciliation bills. The first loophole is that the time limitation on
budget resolutions and reconciliation bills is for debate only.
Senators can continue to offer amendments after the time has expired.
This loophole has been exploited in recent years where there is this
mad rush in the Senate at the end of the process to vote on
amendments--a demeaning process for what is supposed to be the
``world's greatest deliberative body.'' On October 27, 1995, the Senate
broke a record by holding 39 consecutive roll call votes on a
reconciliation bill, with the first vote beginning at 9:29 in the
morning and the last vote ending at 11:59 that night.
The second loophole pertains to sense of the Senate amendments on
budget resolutions. In the Senate, amendments to budget resolution must
be germane. However, sense of the Senate amendments that are in the
Budget Committee's jurisdiction are considered germane. By adding the
words, ``the funding levels in this resolution assume that'', a Senator
can make any sense of the Senate amendment germane. Instead of debating
spending, revenue, and debt levels, the Senate now spends most of its
time debating non-binding language on budget resolutions. For example,
last year's Senate-passed budget resolution contained 65 separate sense
of the Senate provisions. Ninety-nine of the 139 pages in that budget
resolution were devoted to sense of the Senate provisions, ranging from
agricultural trade policy to the Ten Commandments.
Title V makes two basic changes to Senate's procedures for
consideration of budget resolutions and reconciliation bills. First, it
provides a procedure similar to post-cloture for the consideration of
budget resolutions and reconciliation bills. Second, it prohibits the
inclusion of sense of the Senate language in budget resolutions and
makes any sense of the Senate amendment not germane and subject to a 60
vote point of order under the Budget Act.
Mr. President, I have a more detailed description of this legislation
and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed, with the text of the
bill, in the Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 93

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--BIENNIAL BUDGETING AND APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Revision of timetable.
Sec. 103. Amendments to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974.
Sec. 104. Pay-as-you-go in the Senate.
Sec. 105. Amendments to title 31, United States Code.
Sec. 106. Two-year appropriations; title and style of appropriations
Acts.
Sec. 107. Multiyear authorizations.
Sec. 108. Government plans on a biennial basis.
Sec. 109. Biennial appropriations bills.
Sec. 110. Report on two-year fiscal period.
Sec. 111. Effective date.

TITLE II--EMERGENCY SPENDING REFORMS

Sec. 201. Emergency designation guidance.

TITLE III--CLARIFYING CHANGES TO PAY-AS-YOU-GO

Sec. 301. Clarification on the application of section 202 of H. Con.
Res. 67.
Sec. 302. Clarification of pay-as-you-go.
Sec. 303. Clarifications regarding extraneous matter.

TITLE IV--REFORM OF THE SENATE'S CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATIONS BILLS,
BUDGET RESOLUTIONS, AND RECONCILIATION BILLS

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Amendment to title 31.
Sec. 403. Effective date and sunset.

TITLE V--BUDGET ACT AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE SENATE'S CONSIDERATION OF
BUDGET RESOLUTION AND RECONCILIATION BILLS

Sec. 501. Consideration of budget measures in the Senate.

[[Page 839]]

Sec. 502. Definition.
Sec. 503. Conforming the compensation of the director and deputy
director of the Congressional Budget Office with other
legislative branch support agencies.
TITLE I--BIENNIAL BUDGETING AND APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Biennial Budgeting and
Appropriations Act''.

SEC. 102. REVISION OF TIMETABLE.

Section 300 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 631) is amended to read as follows:

``timetable

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``First Session
``On or before: Action to be completed:
First Monday in February.................. President submits budget
recommendations.
February 15............................... Congressional Budget Office
submits report to Budget
Committees.
Not later than 6 weeks after budget Committees submit views and
submission. estimates to Budget
Committees.
April 1................................... Budget Committees report
concurrent resolution on
the biennial budget.
May 15.................................... Congress completes action on
concurrent resolution on
the biennial budget.
May 15.................................... Biennial appropriation bills
may be considered in the
House.
June 10................................... House Appropriations
Committee reports last
biennial appropriation
bill.
June 30................................... House completes action on
biennial appropriation
bills.
August 1.................................. Congress completes action on
reconciliation legislation.
October 1................................. Biennium begins.
``Second Session
``On or before: Action to be completed:
February 15............................... President submits budget
review.
Not later than 6 weeks after President Congressional Budget Office
submits budget review. submits report to Budget
Committees.
The last day of the session............... Congress completes action on
bills and resolutions
authorizing new budget
authority for the
succeeding biennium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 103. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND
IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974.

(a) Declaration of Purpose.--Section 2(2) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 621(2)) is amended by striking ``each year'' and
inserting ``biennially''.
(b) Definitions.--
(1) Budget resolution.--Section 3(4) of such Act (2 U.S.C.
622(4)) is amended by striking ``fiscal year'' each place it
appears and inserting ``biennium''.
(2) Biennium.--Section 3 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 622) is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(11) The term `biennium' means the period of 2
consecutive fiscal years beginning on October 1 of any odd-
numbered year.''.
(c) Biennial Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.--
(1) Contents of resolution.--Section 301(a) of such Act (2
U.S.C. 632(a)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by--
(i) striking ``April 15 of each year'' and inserting ``May
15 of each odd-numbered year'';
(ii) striking ``the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of
such year'' the first place it appears and inserting ``the
biennium beginning on October 1 of such year''; and
(iii) striking ``the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of
such year'' the second place it appears and inserting ``each
fiscal year in such period'';
(B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``for the fiscal year''
and inserting ``for each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
(C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``for the first fiscal
year'' and inserting ``for each fiscal year in the
biennium''.
(2) Additional matters.--Section 301(b)(3) of such Act (2
U.S.C. 632(b)) is amended by striking ``for such fiscal
year'' and inserting ``for either fiscal year in such
biennium''.
(3) Views of other committees.--Section 301(d) of such Act
(2 U.S.C. 632(d)) is amended by inserting ``(or, if
applicable, as provided by section 300(b))'' after ``United
States Code''.
(4) Hearings.--Section 301(e)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C.
632(e)) is amended by--
(A) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium'';
and
(B) inserting after the second sentence the following: ``On
or before April 1 of each odd-numbered year (or, if
applicable, as provided by section 300(b)), the Committee on
the Budget of each House shall report to its House the
concurrent resolution on the budget referred to in subsection
(a) for the biennium beginning on October 1 of that year.''.
(5) Goals for reducing unemployment.--Section 301(f) of
such Act (2 U.S.C. 632(f)) is amended by striking ``fiscal
year'' each place it appears and inserting ``biennium''.
(6) Economic assumptions.--Section 301(g)(1) of such Act (2
U.S.C. 632(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``for a fiscal
year'' and inserting ``for a biennium''.
(7) Section heading.--The section heading of section 301 of
such Act is amended by striking ``ANNUAL'' and inserting
``BIENNIAL''.
(8) Table of contents.--The item relating to section 301 in
the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of such Act
is amended by striking ``Annual'' and inserting ``Biennial''.
(d) Committee Allocations.--Section 302 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``for the first fiscal
year of the resolution,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal
year in the biennium, for at least each of 4 ensuing fiscal
years,'';
(2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``for a fiscal year''
and inserting ``for a biennium'';
(3) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``first fiscal year''
and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennum'';
(4) in subsection (f)(2)(A), by striking ``first fiscal
year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium'';
and
(5) in subsection (g)(1)(A), by striking ``April'' and
inserting ``May''.
(e) Section 303 Point of Order.--
(1) In general.--Section 303(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C.
634(a)) is amended by striking ``first fiscal year'' and
inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium''.
(2) Exceptions in the house.--Section 303(b)(1) of such Act
(2 U.S.C. 634(b)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the budget year''
and inserting ``the biennium''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the fiscal year''
and inserting ``the biennium''.
(3) Application to the senate.--Section 303(c)(1) of such
Act (2 U.S.C. 634(c)) is amended by--
(A) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium'';
and
(B) striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year
of that biennium''.
(f) Permissible Revisions of Concurrent Resolutions on the
Budget.--Section 304(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 635) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``fiscal year'' the first two places it
appears and inserting ``biennium'';
(2) by striking ``for such fiscal year''; and
(3) by inserting before the period ``for such biennium''.
(g) Procedures for Consideration of Budget Resolutions.--
Section 305(a)(3) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 636(b)(3)) is amended
by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''.
(h) Completion of House Action on Appropriation Bills.--
Section 307 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 638) is amended--
(1) by striking ``each year'' and inserting ``each odd-
numbered year'';
(2) by striking ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial'';
(3) by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium'';
and
(4) by striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each odd-
numbered year''.
(i) Completion of Action on Regular Appropriation Bills.--
Section 309 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 640) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``of any odd-numbered calendar year''
after ``July'';
(2) by striking ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''; and
(3) by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''.
(j) Reconciliation Process.--Section 310(a) of such Act (2
U.S.C. 641(a)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``any fiscal year'' and inserting ``any biennium''; and
(2) in paragraph (1) by striking ``such fiscal year'' each
place it appears and inserting ``any fiscal year covered by
such resolution''.
(k) Section 311 Point of Order.--
(1) In the house.--Section 311(a)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C.
642(a)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``for a fiscal year'' and inserting ``for a
biennium'';
(B) by striking ``the first fiscal year'' each place it
appears and inserting ``either fiscal year of the biennium'';
and
(C) by striking ``that first fiscal year'' and inserting
``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
(2) In the senate.--Section 311(a)(2) of such Act is
amended--
(A) by striking ``for the first fiscal year'' and inserting
``for either fiscal year of the biennium''; and
(B) by striking ``that first fiscal year'' each place it
appears and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.

[[Page 840]]

(3) Social security levels.--Section 311(a)(3) of such Act
is amended by--
(A) striking ``for the first fiscal year'' and inserting
``each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
(B) striking ``that fiscal year'' and inserting ``each
fiscal year in the biennium''.
(l) MDA Point of Order.--Section 312(c) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 643) is amended--
(1) by striking ``for a fiscal year'' and inserting ``for a
biennium'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``first fiscal year'' and
inserting ``either fiscal year in the biennium'';
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``that fiscal year'' and
inserting ``either fiscal year in the biennium''; and
(4) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking
``that fiscal year'' and inserting ``the applicable fiscal
year''.

SEC. 104. PAY-AS-YOU-GO IN THE SENATE.

SEC. 105. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE.

(a) Definition.--Section 1101 of title 31, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following
new paragraph:
``(3) `biennium' has the meaning given to such term in
paragraph (11) of section 3 of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 622(11)).''.
(b) Budget Contents and Submission to the Congress.--
(1) Schedule.--The matter preceding paragraph (1) in
section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``(a) On or before the first Monday in February of each
odd-numbered year (or, if applicable, as provided by section
300(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974), beginning
with the One Hundred Seventh Congress, the President shall
transmit to the Congress, the budget for the biennium
beginning on October 1 of such calendar year. The budget
transmitted under this subsection shall include a budget
message and summary and supporting information. The President
shall include in each budget the following:''.
(2) Expenditures.--Section 1105(a)(5) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal year for
which the budget is submitted and the 4 fiscal years after
that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium
for which the budget is submitted and in the succeeding 4
years''.
(3) Receipts.--Section 1105(a)(6) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal year for
which the budget is submitted and the 4 fiscal years after
that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium
for which the budget is submitted and in the succeeding 4
years''.
(4) Balance statements.--Section 1105(a)(9)(C) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal
year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
(5) Functions and activities.--Section 1105(a)(12) of title
31, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the fiscal year''
and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
(6) Allowances.--Section 1105(a)(13) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal year'' and
inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
(7) Allowances for uncontrolled expenditures.--Section
1105(a)(14) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in
the biennium for which the budget is submitted''.
(8) Tax expenditures.--Section 1105(a)(16) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal
year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
(9) Future years.--Section 1105(a)(17) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``the fiscal year following the fiscal
year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium
following the biennium'';
(B) by striking ``that following fiscal year'' and
inserting ``each such fiscal year''; and
(C) by striking ``fiscal year before the fiscal year'' and
inserting ``biennium before the biennium''.
(10) Prior year outlays.--Section 1105(a)(18) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``the prior fiscal year'' and inserting
``each of the 2 most recently completed fiscal years,'';
(B) by striking ``for that year'' and inserting ``with
respect to those fiscal years''; and
(C) by striking ``in that year'' and inserting ``in those
fiscal years''.
(11) Prior year receipts.--Section 1105(a)(19) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``the prior fiscal year'' and inserting
``each of the 2 most recently completed fiscal years'';
(B) by striking ``for that year'' and inserting ``with
respect to those fiscal years''; and
(C) by striking ``in that year'' each place it appears and
inserting ``in those fiscal years''.
(c) Estimated Expenditures of Legislative and Judicial
Branches.--Section 1105(b) of title 31, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``each year'' and inserting ``each
even-numbered year''.
(d) Recommendations To Meet Estimated Deficiencies.--
Section 1105(c) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``the fiscal year for'' the first place it
appears and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium
for'';
(2) by striking ``the fiscal year for'' the second place it
appears and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium, as
the case may be,''; and
(3) by striking ``that year'' and inserting ``for each year
of the biennium''.
(e) Capital Investment Analysis.--Section 1105(e)(1) of
title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking
``ensuing fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium to which
such budget relates''.
(f) Supplemental Budget Estimates and Changes.--
(1) In general.--Section 1106(a) of title 31, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by--
(i) striking ``Before July 16 of each year,'' and inserting
``Before February 15 of each even numbered year,''; and
(ii) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium'';
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``that fiscal year'' and
inserting ``each fiscal year in such biennium'';
(C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``4 fiscal years
following the fiscal year'' and inserting ``4 fiscal years
following the biennium''; and
(D) in paragraph (3), by striking ``fiscal year'' and
inserting ``biennium''.
(2) Changes.--Section 1106(b) of title 31, United States
Code, is amended by--
(A) striking ``the fiscal year'' and inserting ``each
fiscal year in the biennium'';
(B) striking ``April 11 and July 16 of each year'' and
inserting ``February 15 of each even-numbered year''; and
(C) striking ``July 16'' and inserting ``February 15 of
each even-numbered year.''.
(g) Current Programs and Activities Estimates.--
(1) In general.--Section 1109(a) of title 31, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``On or before the first Monday after
January 3 of each year (on or before February 5 in 1986)''
and inserting ``At the same time the budget required by
section 1105 is submitted for a biennium''; and
(B) by striking ``the following fiscal year'' and inserting
``each fiscal year of such period''.
(2) Joint economic committee.--Section 1109(b) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``March 1 of each
year'' and inserting ``within 6 weeks of the President's
budget submission for each odd-numbered year (or, if
applicable, as provided by section 300(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974)''.
(h) Year-Ahead Requests for Authorizing Legislation.--
Section 1110 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by--
(1) striking ``May 16'' and inserting ``March 31''; and
(2) striking ``year before the year in which the fiscal
year begins'' and inserting ``calendar year preceding the
calendar year in which the biennium begins''.

SEC. 106. TWO-YEAR APPROPRIATIONS; TITLE AND STYLE OF
APPROPRIATIONS ACTS.

Section 105 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``Sec. 105. Title and style of appropriations Acts

SEC. 107. MULTIYEAR AUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following:

``authorizations of appropriations

[[Page 841]]

``(2) in any odd-numbered year, any authorization or
revenue bill or joint resolution until Congress completes
action on the biennial budget resolution, all regular
biennial appropriations bills, and all reconciliation bills.
``(b) Applicability.--In the Senate, subsection (a) shall
not apply to--
``(1) any measure that is privileged for consideration
pursuant to a rule or statute;
``(2) any matter considered in Executive Session; or
``(3) an appropriations measure or reconciliation bill.''.
(b) Amendment to Table of Contents.--The table of contents
set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding after
the item relating to section 313 the following new item:

``Sec. 316. Authorizations of appropriations.''.

SEC. 108. GOVERNMENT PLANS ON A BIENNIAL BASIS.

(a) Strategic Plans.--Section 306 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``September 30, 1997''
and inserting ``September 30, 2000'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``at least every three years'' and
inserting ``at least every 4 years''; and
(B) by striking ``five years forward'' and inserting ``six
years forward''; and
(3) in subsection (c), by inserting a comma after
``section'' the second place it appears and adding
``including a strategic plan submitted by September 30, 1997
meeting the requirements of subsection (a)''.
(b) Budget Contents and Submission to Congress.--Paragraph
(28) of section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``beginning with fiscal year 1999, a''
and inserting ``beginning with fiscal year 2002, a
biennial''.
(c) Performance Plans.--Section 1115 of title 31, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter before paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``section 1105(a)(29)'' and inserting
``section 1105(a)(28)''; and
(ii) by striking ``an annual'' and inserting ``a
biennial'';
(B) in paragraph (1) by inserting after ``program
activity'' the following: ``for both years 1 and 2 of the
biennial plan'';
(C) in paragraph (5) by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon,
(D) in paragraph (6) by striking the period and inserting a
semicolon; and inserting ``and'' after the inserted
semicolon; and
(E) by adding after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) cover a 2-year period beginning with the first fiscal
year of the next biennial budget cycle.'';
(2) in subsection (d) by striking ``annual'' and inserting
``biennial''; and
(3) in paragraph (6) of subsection (f) by striking
``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''.
(d) Managerial Accountability and Flexibility.--Section
9703 of title 31, United States Code, relating to managerial
accountability, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the first sentence by striking ``annual''; and
(B) by striking ``section 1105(a)(29)'' and inserting
``section 1105(a)(28)'';
(2) in subsection (e)--
(A) in the first sentence by striking ``one or'' before
``years'';
(B) in the second sentence by striking ``a subsequent
year'' and inserting ``for a subsequent 2-year period''; and
(C) in the third sentence by striking ``three'' and
inserting ``four''.
(e) Pilot Projects for Performance Budgeting.--Section 1119
of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) of subsection (d), by striking
``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''; and
(2) in subsection (e), by striking ``annual'' and inserting
``biennial''.
(f) Strategic Plans.--Section 2802 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``September 30, 1997''
and inserting ``September 30, 2000'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``at least every three
years'' and inserting ``at least every 4 years'';
(3) by striking ``five years forward'' and inserting ``six
years forward''; and
(4) in subsection (c), by inserting a comma after
``section'' the second place it appears and inserting
``including a strategic plan submitted by September 30, 1997
meeting the requirements of subsection (a)''.
(g) Performance Plans.--Section 2803(a) of title 39, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``an
annual'' and inserting ``a biennial'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``program
activity'' the following: ``for both years 1 and 2 of the
biennial plan'';
(3) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(4) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(5) by adding after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) cover a 2-year period beginning with the first fiscal
year of the next biennial budget cycle.''.
(h) Committee Views of Plans and Reports.--Section 301(d)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(d)) is
amended by adding at the end ``Each committee of the Senate
or the House of Representatives shall review the strategic
plans, performance plans, and performance reports, required
under section 306 of title 5, United States Code, and
sections 1115 and 1116 of title 31, United States Code, of
all agencies under the jurisdiction of the committee. Each
committee may provide its views on such plans or reports to
the Committee on the Budget of the applicable House.''.
(i) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
take effect on March 1, 2000.
(2) Agency actions.--Effective on and after the date of
enactment of this title, each agency shall take such actions
as necessary to prepare and submit any plan or report in
accordance with the amendments made by this title.

SEC. 109. BIENNIAL APPROPRIATIONS BILLS.

(a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:

``consideration of biennial appropriations bills

``Sec. 317. Consideration of biennial appropriations bills.''.

SEC. 110. REPORT ON TWO-YEAR FISCAL PERIOD.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
title, the Director of OMB shall--
(1) determine the impact and feasibility of changing the
definition of a fiscal year and the budget process based on
that definition to a 2-year fiscal period with a biennial
budget process based on the 2-year period; and
(2) report the findings of the study to the Committees on
the Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

SEC. 111. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in sections 108 and 110
and subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by
this title shall take effect on January 1, 2001, and shall
apply to budget resolutions and appropriations for the
biennium beginning with fiscal year 2002.
(b) Authorizations for the Biennium.--For purposes of
authorizations for the biennium beginning with fiscal year
2002, the provisions of this title and the amendments made by
this title relating to 2-year authorizations shall take
effect January 1, 2000.
TITLE II--EMERGENCY SPENDING REFORMS

SEC. 201. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION GUIDANCE.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended--
(1) by adding the following new section at the end of title
III:

``SEC. 318. EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

``(a) Designations.--
``(1) Guidance.--In making a designation of a provision of
legislation as an emergency requirement under section
251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985--
``(A) the President shall submit a message to the Congress
analyzing whether a proposed emergency requirement meets all
the criteria in paragraph (2); and
``(B) the committee report, if any, accompanying that
legislation shall analyze whether a proposed emergency
requirement meets all the criteria in paragraph (2).
``(2) Criteria.--
``(A) In general.--A proposed expenditure or tax change is
an emergency requirement if it is--
``(i) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or
beneficial);
``(ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building
up over time;
``(iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring
immediate action;
``(iv) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen,
unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
``(v) not permanent, temporary in nature.
``(B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an
aggregate level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when
normally estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
``(3) Justification for failure to meet criteria.--If the
proposed emergency requirement does not meet all the criteria
set forth in paragraph (2), the President or the

[[Page 842]]

committee report, as the case may be, shall provide a written
justification of why the requirement is an emergency.
``(b) Point of Order.--
``(1) In general.--When the Senate is considering a bill,
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, upon a
point of order being made by a Senator against any provision
in that measure designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and the
Presiding Officer sustains that point of order, that
provision along with the language making the designation
shall be stricken from the measure and may not be offered as
an amendment from the floor.
``(2) Emergency legislation.--When the Senate is
considering an emergency supplemental appropriations bill, an
amendment thereto, a motion thereto, or a conference report
therefrom, upon a point of order being made by a Senator
against any provision in that measure that is not designated
as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)
or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 and the Presiding Officer sustains that
point of order, that provision shall be stricken from the
measure and may not be offered as an amendment from the
floor.
``(3) Conference reports.--A point of order sustained under
this subsection against a conference report shall be disposed
of as provided in section 313(d).
``(c) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, an
emergency supplemental appropriations bill is a bill or joint
resolution that--
``(1) includes a provision designated as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985;
``(2) includes in the long title or short title of that
bill or joint resolution any of the following words:
emergency, urgent, or disaster; and
``(3) appropriates funds in addition to those enacted in
the regular appropriations Act for that year as defined in
section 1311 of title 31, United States Code.'';
(2) in subsections (c)(2) and (d)(2) of section 904, by
striking ``and 312(c)'' and inserting ``312(c), and 316'';
and
(3) in the table of contents in section 1(a), by adding
after the item for section 317 the following:

``318. Emergency legislation.''.
TITLE III--CLARIFYING CHANGES TO PAY-AS-YOU-GO

SEC. 301. CLARIFICATION ON THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 202 OF
H. CON. RES. 67.

Section 202(b) of H. Con. Res. 67 (104th Congress) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the deficit'' and
inserting ``the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget
deficit''; and
(2) in paragraph (6), by--
(A) striking ``increases the deficit'' and inserting
``increases the on-budget deficit or causes an on-budget
deficit''; and
(B) striking ``increase the deficit'' and inserting
``increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget
deficit''.

SEC. 302. CLARIFICATION OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO.

(a) In General.--Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the deficit'' and
inserting ``the on-budget deficit or causes an on-budget
deficit'';
(2) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) the estimate of the on-budget surplus for the budget
year determined under section 254(c)(3)(D).''.
(b) Baseline.--Section 254(c)(3) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) The estimated excess of on-budget receipts over on-
budget outlays for the budget year assuming compliance with
the discretionary spending limits and that the full
adjustments are made under subparagraphs (C), (E), and (F) of
section 251(b)(2).''.

SEC. 303. CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING EXTRANEOUS MATTER.

Section 313(b)(1)(E) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 is amended by striking ``such year;'' and inserting
``such year or such increases or decreases, when taken with
other provisions in such bill, would cause an on-budget
deficit in such year;''.
TITLE IV--REFORM OF THE SENATE'S CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATIONS BILLS,
BUDGET RESOLUTIONS, AND RECONCILIATION BILLS

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Government Shutdown
Prevention Act''.

SEC. 402. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 31.

(a) In General.--Chapter 13 of title 31, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1310 the
following new section:

``Sec. 1311. Continuing appropriations

``(a)(1) If any regular appropriation bill for a fiscal
year does not become law prior to the beginning of such
fiscal year or a joint resolution making continuing
appropriations is not in effect, there is appropriated, out
of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and
out of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and
funds, such sums as may be necessary to continue any project
or activity for which funds were provided in the preceding
fiscal year--
``(A) in the corresponding regular appropriation Act for
such preceding fiscal year; or
``(B) if the corresponding regular appropriation bill for
such preceding fiscal year did not become law, then in a
joint resolution making continuing appropriations for such
preceding fiscal year.
``(2) Appropriations and funds made available, and
authority granted, for a project or activity for any fiscal
year pursuant to this section shall be at a rate of
operations not in excess of the lower of--
``(A) the rate of operations provided for in the regular
appropriation Act providing for such project or activity for
the preceding fiscal year;
``(B) in the absence of such an Act, the rate of operations
provided for such project or activity pursuant to a joint
resolution making continuing appropriations for such
preceding fiscal year;
``(C) the rate provided in the budget submission of the
President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States
Code, for the fiscal year in question; or
``(D) the annualized rate of operations provided for in the
most recently enacted joint resolution making continuing
appropriations for part of that fiscal year or any funding
levels established under the provisions of this Act.
``(3) Appropriations and funds made available, and
authority granted, for any fiscal year pursuant to this
section for a project or activity shall be available for the
period beginning with the first day of a lapse in
appropriations and ending with the earlier of--
``(A) the date on which the applicable regular
appropriation bill for such fiscal year becomes law (whether
or not such law provides for such project or activity) or a
continuing resolution making appropriations becomes law, as
the case may be; or
``(B) the last day of such fiscal year.
``(b) An appropriation or funds made available, or
authority granted, for a project or activity for any fiscal
year pursuant to this section shall be subject to the terms
and conditions imposed with respect to the appropriation made
or funds made available for the preceding fiscal year, or
authority granted for such project or activity under current
law.
``(c) Appropriations and funds made available, and
authority granted, for any project or activity for any fiscal
year pursuant to this section shall cover all obligations or
expenditures incurred for such project or activity during the
portion of such fiscal year for which this section applies to
such project or activity.
``(d) Expenditures made for a project or activity for any
fiscal year pursuant to this section shall be charged to the
applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization whenever a
regular appropriation bill or a joint resolution making
continuing appropriations until the end of a fiscal year
providing for such project or activity for such period
becomes law.
``(e) This section shall not apply to a project or activity
during a fiscal year if any other provision of law (other
than an authorization of appropriations)--
``(1) makes an appropriation, makes funds available, or
grants authority for such project or activity to continue for
such period; or
``(2) specifically provides that no appropriation shall be
made, no funds shall be made available, or no authority shall
be granted for such project or activity to continue for such
period.
``(f) In this section, the term `regular appropriation
bill' means any annual appropriation bill making
appropriations, otherwise making funds available, or granting
authority, for any of the following categories of projects
and activities:
``(1) Agriculture, rural development, and related agencies
programs.
``(2) The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
judiciary, and related agencies.
``(3) The Department of Defense.
``(4) The government of the District of Columbia and other
activities chargeable in whole or in part against the
revenues of the District.
``(5) The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and related agencies.
``(6) The Department of Housing and Urban Development, and
sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions,
corporations, and offices.
``(7) Energy and water development.
``(8) Foreign assistance and related programs.
``(9) The Department of the Interior and related agencies.
``(10) Military construction.
``(11) The Department of Transportation and related
agencies.
``(12) The Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service,
the Executive Office of the President, and certain
independent agencies.
``(13) The legislative branch.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--The analysis of chapter 13 of
title 31, United States Code,

[[Page 843]]

is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
1310 the following new item:

``1311. Continuing appropriations.''.

(c) Protection of Other Obligations.--Nothing in the
amendments made by this section shall be construed to effect
Government obligations mandated by other law, including
obligations with respect to Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid.

SEC. 403. EFFECTIVE DATE AND SUNSET.

(a) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this title
shall apply with respect to fiscal years beginning with
fiscal year 2000.
(b) Sunset.--The amendments made by this title shall sunset
and have no force or effect after fiscal year 2001.
TITLE V--BUDGET ACT AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE SENATE'S CONSIDERATION OF
BUDGET RESOLUTION AND RECONCILIATION BILLS

SEC. 501. CONSIDERATION OF BUDGET MEASURES IN THE SENATE.

(a) Prohibition Against Inclusion of Precatory Language in
a Budget Resolution.--Section 301(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The concurrent resolution shall not include
precatory language.''.
(b) Procedure.--Section 305(b) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Procedure in Senate for the Consideration of a
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.--
``(1) Legislation available.--It shall not be in order to
proceed to the consideration of a concurrent resolution on
the budget unless the text of that resolution has been
available to Members for at least 1 calendar day (excluding
Sundays and legal holidays unless the Senate is in session)
prior to the consideration of the measure.
``(2) Time for debate.--
``(A) In general.--Debate in the Senate on any concurrent
resolution on the budget, and all amendments thereto and
debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall
be limited to not more than 30 hours, except that with
respect to any concurrent resolution referred to in section
304(a) all such debate shall be limited to not more than 10
hours. Of this 30 hours, 10 hours shall be reserved for
general debate on the resolution (including debate on
economic goals and policies) and 20 hours shall be reserved
for debate of amendments, motions, and appeals. The time for
general debate shall be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or
their designees.
``(B) Disposition of amendments and other matters.--After
no more than 30 hours of debate on the concurrent resolution
on the budget, the Senate shall, except as provided in
subparagraph (C), proceed, without any further action or
debate on any question, to vote on the final disposition
thereof.
``(C) Action permitted after 30 hours.--After no more than
30 hours of debate on the concurrent resolution on the
budget, the only further action in order shall be disposition
of--
``(i) all amendments then pending before the Senate;
``(ii) all points of order arising under this Act which
have been previously raised; and
``(iii) motions to reconsider and 1 quorum call on demand
to establish the presence of a quorum (and motions required
to establish a quorum) immediately before the final vote
begins.
Disposition shall include raising points of order against
pending amendments, motions to table, and motions to waive.
``(3) Amendments.--
``(A) Debate.--Debate in the Senate on any amendment to a
concurrent resolution on the budget shall be limited to 1
hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the
mover and the manager of the concurrent resolution, and
debate on any amendment to an amendment, debatable motion, or
appeal shall be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided
between, and controlled by, the mover and the manager of the
concurrent resolution, except that in the event the manager
of the concurrent resolution is in favor of any such
amendment, motion, or appeal, the time in opposition thereto
shall be controlled by the Minority Leader or his designee.
No amendment that is not germane to the provisions of that
concurrent resolution shall be received. An amendment that
includes precatory language shall not be considered germane.
Such leaders, or either of them, may, from the time for
general debate under their control on the adoption of the
concurrent resolution, allot additional time to any Senator
during the consideration of any amendment, debatable motion,
or appeal.
``(B) Filing of amendments.--Except by unanimous consent,
no amendment shall be proposed after 15 hours of debate of a
concurrent resolution on the budget have elapsed, unless it
has been submitted in writing to the Journal Clerk by the
15th hour if an amendment in the first degree (or if a
complete substitute for the underlying measure), and unless
it has been so submitted by the 20th hour if an amendment to
an amendment (or an amendment to the language proposed to be
stricken).
``(C) Recognition.--For the purpose of providing an
opportunity for the offering amendments in the first degree
(or amendments which are a complete substitute for the
underlying measure), the Presiding Officer of the Senate
shall alternate recognition between members of the majority
party and the minority party. No Senator shall call up more
than a total of 2 amendments until every other Senator shall
have had the opportunity to do likewise.
``(D) Limitation on number of second degree amendments.--No
more than a total of 2 consecutive amendments to any
amendment may be offered by either the majority or minority
party.
``(4) Debate.--General debate time may only be yielded back
by unanimous consent and a motion to further limit the time
for general debate shall be debatable for 30 minutes. A
motion to recommit (except a motion to recommit with
instructions to report back within a specified number of
days, not to exceed 3, not counting any day on which the
Senate is not in session) is not in order. Debate on any such
motion to recommit shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally
divided between, and controlled by, the mover and the manager
of the concurrent resolution.
``(5) Mathematical consistency.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other rule, and
except as provided in subparagraph (B), an amendment or
series of amendments to a concurrent resolution on the budget
proposed in the Senate shall always be in order if such
amendment or series of amendments proposes to change any
figure or figures then contained in such concurrent
resolution so as to make such concurrent resolution
mathematically consistent or so as to maintain such
consistency.
``(B) Effect of adoption of substitute amendments.--Once an
amendment to an amendment (which is a complete substitute for
the underlying amendment) has been agreed to, no further
amendments to the underlying amendment shall be in order.''.
(c) Conference Reports in the Senate.--Section 305(c) is
amended to read as follows:
``(c) Action on Conference Reports in the Senate.--
``(1) Motion to proceed.--A motion to proceed to the
consideration of the conference report on any concurrent
resolution on the budget (or a reconciliation bill or
resolution) may be made even though a previous motion to the
same effect has been disagreed to.
``(2) Consideration.--
``(A) In general.--During the consideration in the Senate
of the conference report (or a message between Houses) on any
concurrent resolution on the budget, and all amendments in
disagreement, and all amendments thereto, and debatable
motions and appeals in connection therewith, debate shall be
limited to 10 hours, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or
their designees. Debate on any debatable motion or appeal
related to the conference report (or a message between
Houses) shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided
between, and controlled by, the mover and the manager of the
conference report (or a message between Houses).
``(B) Disposition.--After no more than 10 hours of debate
on the conference report (or message between Houses)
accompanying a concurrent resolution on the budget, and all
amendments in disagreement, and all amendments thereto, the
Senate shall, except as provided in subparagraph (C),
proceed, without any further action or debate on any
question, to vote on the final disposition thereof.
``(C) Action permitted after 10 hours.--After no more than
10 hours of debate on the conference report (or message
between the Houses) accompanying a concurrent resolution on
the budget, and all amendments in disagreement, and all
amendments thereto, the only further action in order shall be
disposition of: all amendments then pending before the
Senate; all points of order arising under this Act which have
been previously raised; and motions to reconsider and 1
quorum call on demand to establish the presence of a quorum
(and motions required to establish a quorum) immediately
before the final vote begins. Disposition shall include
raising points of order against pending amendments, motions
to table, and motions to waive.
``(3) Conference report defeated.--Should the conference
report be defeated, debate on any request for a new
conference and the appointment of conferees shall be limited
to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by,
the manager of the conference report and the Minority Leader
or his designee, and should any motion be made to instruct
the conferees before the conferees are named, debate on that
motion shall be limited to one-half hour, to be equally
divided between, and controlled by, the mover and the manager
of the conference report. Debate on any amendment to any such
instructions shall be limited to 20 minutes, to be equally
divided between and controlled by the mover and the manager
of the conference report. In all cases when the manager of
the conference report is in favor of any motion, appeal, or
amendment, the time in opposition shall be under the control
of the minority leader or his designee.

[[Page 844]]

``(4) Amendments in disagreement.--In any case in which
there are amendments in disagreement, time on each amendment
shall be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided
between, and controlled by, the manager of the conference
report and the Minority Leader or his designee. No amendment
that is not germane to the provisions of such amendments
shall be received.''.
(c) Reconciliation.--Section 310(e) is amended to read as
follows:
``(e) Procedure in the Senate.--The provisions of section
305 for the consideration in the Senate of concurrent
resolutions on the budget and conference reports thereon,
except for the provisions of subsection (b)(5) of that
section, shall also apply to the consideration in the Senate
of reconciliation bills considered under subsection (b) and
conference reports thereon.''.

SEC. 502. DEFINITION.

Section 3 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended by adding the following new paragraph:
``(13) The term `major functional category' means the
allocation of budget authority and outlays separated into the
following subtotals:
``(A) Defense discretionary.
``(B) Nondefense discretionary.
``(C) Direct spending.
``(D) If deemed necessary, other subsets of discretionary
and direct spending.''.

SEC. 503. CONFORMING THE COMPENSATION OF THE DIRECTOR AND
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
OFFICE WITH OTHER LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SUPPORT
AGENCIES.

Section 201(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``(III)'' and
inserting ``(II)''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``(IV)'' and
inserting ``(III)''.
____

Description of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1999

Title I: Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations

Requires the President to submit a two-year budget at the
beginning of the first session of a Congress.
Requires Congress to adopt a two-year budget resolution and
a reconciliation bill (if necessary) during the first session
of a Congress.
Requires Congress to enact 13 appropriations bills covering
a two-year period during the first session of a Congress and
provides a new majority point of order against appropriations
bills that fail to cover two years.
Makes budgeting and appropriating the priority for the
first session of a Congress by providing a new majority point
of order against consideration of authorization and revenue
legislation until the completion of the biennial budget
resolution, reconciliation legislation (if necessary) and the
thirteen biennial appropriations bills.
Devotes the second session of a Congress to consideration
of biennial authorization bills and oversight of federal
programs and provides a majority point of order against
authorization and revenue legislation that cover less than
two years except those measures limited to temporary programs
or activities lasting less than two years.
Modifies the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(the Results Act) to incorporate the government performance
planning and reporting process into the two-year budget cycle
to enhance oversight of federal programs.

title ii: emergency spending reforms

Makes any emergency spending in any bill subject to a 60
vote point of order in the Senate. If this point of order is
sustained against any emergency provision, the emergency
spending would be extracted from the bill under a Byrd rule
procedure.
Provides a reporting requirement for the President and
Congress to justify proposed emergencies spending and to
document whether proposed emergencies meet five criteria:
necessary, sudden, urgent, unforseen, and not permanent.
Makes any non-emergency provision in an emergency
supplemental appropriations bill subject to a 60 vote point
of order in the Senate. If this point of order was sustained,
the non-emergency provision would be extracted from the bill
under a Byrd rule procedure.

title iii: clarifying changes to pay-as-you-go

Amends the Senate's 10-year pay-as-you-go rule to make
clear that an on-budget surplus can be used to offset the
cost of tax reductions or direct spending increases.
Amends the statutory pay-go system (enforced by OMB) to
make clear that an on-budget surplus can be used to offset
the cost of tax reductions or direct spending increases.
Amends the Byrd rule to allow revenue losing provisions in
reconciliation bills to be made permanent as long as they do
not cause an on-budget deficit in the future.

title iv: government shutdown prevention act

Provide for an automatic continuing resolution (CR) at the
lower of the President's requested level or the previous
year's appropriated level.

title v: streamlining the budget process

Eliminates the ``vote-athon'' at the end of the process by
adopting procedures similar to a post-cloture process for
budget resolutions and reconciliation bills:
Reduce time on a budget resolution from 50 to 30 hours (10
hours of which would be reserved for amendments);
Reduce time on amendments from 2 hours to 1 hour;
Establish filing deadlines (1st degree amendments must be
filed by 15th hour; 2nd degree amendments must be filed by
20th hour);
After all time expires, require vote on any pending
amendments and then final passage;
Make sense of the Senate amendments on budget resolutions
and reconciliation bills nongermane; and,
Adopt same procedures for reconciliation bills.
Modifies the scope of the budget resolution to be major
categories of spending instead of 20 individual functions.
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 94. A bill to repeal the telephone excise tax; to the Committee on
Finance.

Repeal of Three Percent Federal Excise Tax

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to repeal the
three percent federal excise tax that all Americans pay every time they
use a telephone.
Under current law, the federal government taxes you three percent of
your monthly phone bill for the so-called ``privilege'' of using your
phone lines. This tax was first imposed one hundred years ago. To help
finance the Spanish-American War, the federal government taxed
telephone service, which in 1898 was a luxury service enjoyed by
relatively few. The tax reappeared as a means of raising revenue for
World War I, and continued as a revenue-raiser during the Great
Depression, World War II, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and the chronic
federal budget deficits of the last twenty years.
Fortunately for telephone subscribers, we are enjoying some long-
overdue good news: thanks to the Balanced Budget Act enacted by the
Congress in 1997, we are now expecting budget surpluses for the next
decade, perhaps as much as $700 billion. Mr. President, just as it did
in the 105th Congress, that announcement should mean the end of the
federal phone excise tax.
Here's why. First of all, the telephone is a modern-day necessity,
not like alcohol, or furs, or jewelry, or other items of the sort that
the government taxes this way. The Congress specifically recognized the
need for all Americans to have affordable telephone service when it
enacted the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The universal service
provisions of the Act are intended to assure that all Americans,
regardless of where they live or how much money they make, have access
to affordable telephone service. The telephone excise tax, which bears
no relationship to any government service received by the consumer, is
flatly inconsistent with the goal of universal telephone service.
It's also a highly regressive and unfair tax that hurts low-income
and rural Americans even more than other Americans. Low-income families
spend a higher percentage of their income than medium- or high-income
families on telephone service, and that means the telephone tax hits
low-income families much harder. For that reason the Congressional
Budget Office has concluded that increases in the telephone tax would
have a greater impact on low-income families than tax increases on
alcohol or tobacco products. And a study by the American Agriculture
Movement concluded that excise taxes like the telephone tax impose a
disproportionately large tax burden on rural customers, too, who rely
on telephone service in isolated areas.
But, in addition to being unfair and unnecessary, there is another
reason why we should eliminate the telephone excise tax. Implementation
of the Telecom Act of 1996 requires all telecommunications carriers--
local, long-distance, and wireless--to incur new costs in order to
produce a new, more competitive market for telecommunications services
of all kinds.
Unfortunately, the cost increases are arriving far more quickly than
the new, more competitive market. The Telecom Act created a new subsidy
program for wiring schools and libraries to the Internet, and the cost
of

[[Page 845]]

funding that subsidy has increased bills for business and residential
users of long-distance telephone service and for consumers of wireless
services.
Mr. President, the fact that the Telecom Act has imposed new charges
on consumers' bills makes it absolutely incumbent upon us to strip away
any unnecessary old charges. And that means the telephone excise tax.
Mr. President, the telephone excise tax isn't a harmless artifact
from bygone days. It collects money for wars that are already over, and
for budget deficits that no longer exist, from people who can least
afford to spend it now and from people who are footing higher bills as
a result of the 1996 Telecom Act implementation. That's unfair, that's
wrong, and that must be stopped.
San Juan Hill and Pork Chop Hill have now gone down in history, and
so should this tax.
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. 94

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

SEC. 1. REPEAL OF TELEPHONE EXCISE TAX.

(a) In General.--Effective with respect to amounts paid
pursuant to bills first rendered on or after January 1, 1999,
subchapter B of chapter 33 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (26 U.S.C. 4251 et seq.) is repealed. For purposes of
the preceding sentence, in the case of communications
services rendered before December 1, 1998, for which a bill
has not been rendered before January 1, 1999, a bill shall be
treated as having been first rendered on December 31, 1998.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Effective January 1, 1999, the
table of subchapters for such chapter is amended by striking
out the item relating to subchapter B.
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 95. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure that
public availability of information concerning stocks traded on an
established stock exchange continues to be freely and readily available
to the public through all media of mass communication; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

the trading information act

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Trading
Information Act. In 1998, Americans continued to discover the Internet
for the increased access to information and entertainment it provides,
and as a more convenient means of purchasing goods. Americans also
continued to discover the Internet as a more direct means of making and
managing investments.
Online stock trading is growing at a phenomenal pace. According to
Forrester Research, there are more than 3 million online accounts, and
that number is expected to exceed 14 million by 2002. In fact, the
number of online traders in 1998 doubled from 1997, as it did from
1996.
Trading over the Internet is providing more Americans with the
opportunity to increase their personal wealth, and to participate in
the current growth in the market. New discount brokerages, high-speed
Internet access, and ``real time'' market updates are all contributing
to the growth of online trading. The Trading Information Act will help
to preserve this growing trend.
The Trading Information Act will ensure that online traders will
continue to have access to information relating to financial markets
which they rely on to properly manage their assets. Whether watching a
stock ticker on television, receiving up-to-date information over a
cell phone or pager, or logging on with an online brokerage firm,
Americans must continue to have unfettered access to this vital
information, and this bill will ensure they continue to have it.
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 96. A bill to regulate commerce between and among the several
States by providing for the orderly resolution of disputes arising out
of computer-based problems related to processing data that includes a
2-digit expression of that year's date; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.

y2k act

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to
limit and prevent needless and costly litigation which is arising as a
result of the computer programming problem commonly known as Y2K. Even
before December 31 arrives lawsuits are beginning to be filed. This is
an unfortunate reflection on our overly litigious society, and a
situation which needs to be remedied. The Y2K Act takes a step toward
encouraging technology producers to work with technology users and
consumers to ensure a seamless transition for the 1990's to the year
2000.
The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that we look to solving
the technology glitch known as Y2K rather than clog our courts with
years of costly litigation. The legislation is designed to compensate
actual losses, but to assure that the courts do not punish defendants
who have made good faith efforts to remedy the technology failure. My
goal is to provide incentives for fixing the potential Y2K failures
before they happen, rather than create windfalls for those who
litigate.
The bill would also encourage efficient resolution of failures by
requiring plaintiffs to afford their potential defendants an
opportunity to remedy the failure and make things right before facing a
lawsuit. We should encourage people to talk to each other, to try to
address and remedy problems in a timely and professional manner.
Physical injuries are not covered by the limitations on litigation
and damages in this bill. In those instances where a computer date
failure is responsible for personal physical injury, it is best to
leave the remedy to existing state laws. Further, it would be imprudent
policy to offer any ``safe harbor'' in such situations because to do so
might have the undesired result of discouraging proactive remediation.
This bill is a starting point. It provides an opportunity to begin
discussion. It is my intention to hold a hearing in the near future,
and to bring this bill to mark-up as quickly as full discussion will
permit. I know many of my colleagues are interested in addressing this
issue as well, and I look forward to working with them, and with
affected industries and consumers to arrive at an acceptable piece of
legislation which will benefit industry and consumers alike.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
S. 97. A bill to require the installation and use by schools and
libraries of a technology for filtering or blocking material on the
Internet on computers with Internet access to be eligible to receive or
retain universal service assistance; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.

children's internet protection act

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Children's
Internet Protection Act, which is designed to protect children from
exposure to sexually explicit and other harmful material when they
access the Internet in school and in the library. This legislation is
substantially similar to the Internet School Filtering Act, which I
introduced in the last session of Congress.
This legislation, like its predecessor, comes to grips with one of
the more unfortunate aspects of modern life: that the problems of
modern life don't stop at the schoolhouse door. Societal problems like
violence and drugs have become part of the curriculum of life at many
schools.
Now, however, we are adding another problem to the list. And this
particular wolf of a problem will walk into our schools disguised in
the worthiest of sheeps' clothing: the Internet.
Today, pornography is widely available on the Internet. According to
``Wired'' magazine, today there are approximately 28,000 adult Web
sites promoting hard and soft-core pornography. Together, these sites
register many millions of ``hits'' by websurfers per day.
Mr. President, there is no question that some of the websurfers who
are accessing these sites are children. Some, unfortunately, are
actively searching for these sites. But many others literally and
unintentionally stumble across them.

[[Page 846]]

Anyone who uses seemingly innocuous terms while searching the World
Wide Web for educational or harmless recreational purposes can
inadvertently run into adult sites. For example, when the term ``H20''
was typed recently into a search engine, one of the first of over
36,000 sites retrieved led to another site titled
``www.hardcoresex.com.'' This site provided the typical warning to
those under 18 not to enter--and then proceeded to offer a free,
uncensored preview of the pornographic material on the site. And when
the searcher attempted to escape from the site, new porn-oriented sites
immediately opened.
Parents wishing to protect their children from exposure to this kind
of material can monitor their children's Internet use at home. This is
a parent's proper role, and no amount of governmental assistance or
industry self-regulation will ever be as effective in protecting
children as parental supervision. But parents can't supervise how their
children use the Internet outside the home, in schools and libraries.
Mr. President, the billions of dollars per year the federal
government will be giving schools and libraries to enable them to bring
advanced Internet learning technology to the classroom will bring in
the Internet's explicit online content as well. These billions of
dollars will ultimately be paid for by the American people. So it is
only right that if schools and libraries accept these federally-
provided subsidies for Internet access, they have an absolute
responsibility to their communities to assure that children are
protected from online content that can harm them.
And this harm can be prevented. The prevention lies, not in censoring
what goes onto the Internet, but rather in filtering what comes out of
it onto the computers our children use outside the home.
Mr. President, Internet filtering systems work, and they need not be
blunt instruments that unduly constrain the availability of
legitimately instructional material. Today they are adaptable, capable
of being fine-tuned to accommodate changes in websites as well as the
evolving needs of individual schools and even individual lesson-plans.
Best of all, their use will channel explicit material away from
children while they are not under parental supervision, while not in
any way inhibiting the rights of adults who may wish to post indecent
material on the Web or have access to it outside school environs.
Mr. President, it boils down to this: The same Internet that can
benefit our children is also capable of inflicting terrible damage on
them. For this reason, school and library administators who accept
universal service support to provide students with its intended
benefits must also safeguard them against its unintended harm. I
commend the efforts of those who have recognized this responsibility by
providing filtering systems in the many educational facilities that
already have Internet capability. This legislation assures that this
responsibility is extended to all other institutions as they implement
advanced technologies funded by federally-mandated universal service
funds.
Mr. President, this bill takes a sensible approach. It requires
schools receiving universal service discounts to use a filtering system
on their computers so that objectionable online materials will not be
accessible to students. Libraries with more than one computer are
required to use a filtering system on at least one computer used by
minors. Filtering technology is itself eligible to be subsidized by the
E-rate discount. Schools and libraries must install and use filtering
or blocking technology to be eligible to receive universal service fund
subsidies for Internet access. If schools and libraries do not do so,
they will not be eligible to receive universal service fund-subsidized
discounts and will have to refund any E-rate subsidy funds already paid
out.
Some have argued that the use of filtering technology in public
schools and libraries would amount to censorship under the First
Amendment. The Supreme Court has found, however, that obscenity is not
protected by the First Amendment. And insofar as other sexually-
explicit material is concerned, the bill will not affect an adult's
ability to access this information on the Internet, and it will in no
way impose any filtering requirement on Internet use in the home.
Perhaps most important, the bill prohibits the federal government
from prescribing any particular filtering system, or from imposing a
different filtering system than the one selected by the certifying
educational authority. It thus places the prerogative for determining
which filtering system best reflects the community's standards
precisely where it should be: on the community itself.
Mr. President, more and more people are using the Internet each day.
Currently, there may be as many as 50 million Americans online, and
that number is expected to at least double by the millennium. As
Internet use in our schools and libraries continues to grow, children's
potential exposure to harmful online content will only increase. This
bill simply assures that universal service subsidies will be used to
defend them from the very dangers that these same subsidies are
otherwise going to increase. This is a rational response to what could
otherwise be a terrible and unintended problem.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill
appear in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 97

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 ``Childrens' Internet
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. NO UNIVERSAL SERVICE FOR SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES THAT
FAIL TO IMPLEMENT A FILTERING OR BLOCKING
TECHNOLOGY FOR COMPUTERS WITH INTERNET ACCESS.

(a) In General.--Section 254 of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 254) is amended by adding at the end thereof
the following:
``(l) Implementation of an Internet Filtering or Blocking
Technology.--
``(1) In general.--An elementary school, secondary school,
or library that fails to provide the certification required
by paragraph (2) or (3), respectively, is not eligible to
receive or retain universal service assistance provided under
subsection (h)(1)(B).
``(2) Certification for schools.--To be eligible to receive
universal service assistance under subsection (h)(1)(B), an
elementary or secondary school (or the school board or other
authority with responsibility for administration of that
school) shall certify to the Commission that it has--
``(A) selected a technology for computers with Internet
access to filter or block material deemed to be harmful to
minors; and
``(B) installed, or will install, and uses or will use, as
soon as it obtains computers with Internet access, a
technology to filter or block such material.
``(3) Certification for libraries.--
``(A) Libraries with more than 1 internet-accessing
computer.--To be eligible to receive universal service
assistance under subsection (h)(1)(B), a library that has
more than 1 computer with Internet access intended for use by
the public (including minors) shall certify to the Commission
that it has installed and uses a technology to filter or
block material deemed to be harmful to minors on one or more
of its computers with Internet access.
``(B) Libraries with only 1 internet-accessing computer.--A
library that has only 1 computer with Internet access
intended for use by the public (including minors) is eligible
to receive universal service assistance under subsection
(h)(1)(B) even if it does not use a technology to filter or
block material deemed to be harmful to minors on that
computer if it certifies to the Commission that it employs a
reasonably effective alternative means to keep minors from
accessing material on the Internet that is deemed to be
harmful to minors.
``(4) Time for certification.--The certification required
by paragraph (2) or (3) shall be made within 30 days of the
date of enactment of the Childrens' Internet Protection Act,
or, if later, within 10 days of the date on which any
computer with access to the Internet is first made available
in the school or library for its intended use.
``(5) Notification of cessation; additional internet-
accessing computer.--
``(A) Cessation.--A library that has filed the
certification required by paragraph (3)(A) shall notify the
Commission within 10 days after the date on which it ceases
to use the filtering or blocking technology to which the
certification related.
``(B) Additional internet-accessing computer.--A library
that has filed the certification required by paragraph (3)(B)
that adds

[[Page 847]]

another computer with Internet access intended for use by the
public (including minors) shall make the certification
required by paragraph (3)(A) within 10 days after that
computer is made available for use by the public.
``(6) Penalty for failure to comply.--A school or library
that fails to meet the requirements of this subsection is
liable to repay immediately the full amount of all universal
service assistance it received under subsection (h)(1)(B).
``(7) Local determination of material to be filtered.--For
purposes of paragraphs (2) and (3), the determination of what
material is to be deemed harmful to minors shall be made by
the school, school board, library or other authority
responsible for making the required certification. No agency
or instrumentality of the United States Government may--
``(A) establish criteria for making that determination;
``(B) review the determination made by the certifying
school, school board, library, or other authority; or
``(C) consider the criteria employed by the certifying
school, school board, library, or other authority in the
administration of subsection (h)(1)(B).''.
(b) Conforming Change.--Section 254(h)(1)(B) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)(1)(B)) is
amended by striking ``All telecommunications'' and inserting
``Except as provided by subsection (l), all
telecommunications''.

SEC. 3. FCC TO ADOPT RULES WITHIN 4 MONTHS.

The Federal Communications Commission shall adopt rules
implementing section 254(l) of the Communications Act of 1934
within 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. Lott):
S. 98. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Surface
Transportation Board for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

surface transportation board reauthorization act of 1999

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Surface
Transportation Board (STB) Reauthorization Act of 1999. I am pleased
Senator Hollings, the Ranking member of Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and Majority Leader Lott, also a
distinguished member of our Committee, have joined me in sponsoring
this important legislation.
The introduction of this bill on this, the first day in the 106th
Congress for introducing legislation, is intended to demonstrate the
firm commitment of the bill's sponsors to enact multi-year legislation
extending the Board's authorization. Many of us worked toward enacting
a reauthorization measure last year, but those efforts were
unsuccessful due to matters generally unrelated to the Board itself.
While those rail-related issues remain for some, I do not believe we
should hold the STB's reauthorization hostage and believe we could
consider dual-track measures--this reauthorization on the one hand and
proposals for statutory changes on another. Although the dual-track did
not succeed last Congress, I am hopeful that it can in the 106th
Congress.
The Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 1999 is
straight forward. First, it proposes to reauthorize the STB for the
current fiscal year through 2002 and provide sufficient resources to
ensure the Board is able to continue to carry out its very serious
responsibilities and duties. Second, it proposes that the Board's
Chairmanship be subject to Senate confirmation like a host of other
Boards and Commissions throughout the Federal governmental, including
the National Transportation Safety Board, the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, the Export-Import Bank, and the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to name a few.
Mr. President, I want to inform my colleagues that the Senate
Commerce Committee intends to fully explore the resource needs of the
Board and also consider limited proposals for statutory changes
advocated by some members. I know the Chairman of the Surface
Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, Senator Hutchison,
plans to hold hearings on the STB and continue the examination of STB
actions affecting rail service and rail shipper problems which were
initiated during the 105th Congress.
As I have stated on numerous occasions, rail service and rail shipper
issues warrant serious consideration. These matters have received
extensive and comprehensive examination under Subcommittee Chairman
Hutchison's able leadership and will continue as important oversight
issues under the Committee's jurisdiction. I strongly believe, however,
specific rail service and rail shipper problems and cases are best
resolved by the Board. That is why Congress must provide the Board with
the resources and legal authority necessary for it to continue to carry
out its statutory duties fully and fairly, and on a timely basis.
The STB is one of our smallest Federal entities and it has very
limited resources. It is imperative that we reauthorize the Board so
that it can continue to produce the vast workload it has achieved since
its inception in 1996. We must do our part to assist the Board in
fulfilling its statutory duties responsibly and independently. The
Administration and Congress must also take necessary action to ensure a
fully constituted Board.
I look forward to working on this important transportation
legislation and hope my colleagues will agree to join with me and the
other sponsors in expeditiously moving this necessary reauthorization
through the legislative process.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the
reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Board (Board). As I have
said many times before, the Board performs a vital role regulating the
interests of our railroad and other surface transportation industries.
Under the able and forward-looking leadership of Linda Morgan, the
Board's Chairman, who was with us on the Commerce Committee for many
years, the Board with its small staff has put out more work, and higher
quality work, than much larger agencies. Most significantly, unlike
many other agencies, the Board is not afraid to tackle the hard issues,
and to put out decisions that are fair, well-reasoned, and independent
of political expediency. For example, the Board's unprecedented and
focused actions in handling the recent rail service crisis in the West
provided the appropriate mix of government intervention and private-
sector initiative.
More recently, at the end of 1998, at the request of Chairman McCain
and Senator Hutchison, the Board reviewed rail competition and issued
several decisions in controversial cases, and made several
recommendations to Congress, that reflect a balanced and comprehensive
view of the transportation industry and the fundamental issues that
confront it. The Board recently released its findings. In rendering
these decisions, the Board, which is accountable to Congress, has acted
responsibly and has provided a valuable service in resolving issues
within its jurisdiction such as the determination of market dominance,
and in raising others, such as open access, more appropriately
addressed by Congress.
As anyone who has read the comprehensive letter from Chairman Morgan
to Senators McCain and Hutchison reporting on the Board's rail access
and competition proceeding knows, the Board has acted creatively,
aggressively, and decisively in tackling hard issues within its
jurisdiction, and in making suggestions to Congress as to how to
address remaining issues of contention between railroads and their
shippers, and between railroads and their employees. One of its
decisions finalized rules that for the first time provide various
specific avenues for relief in cases of localized poor rail service,
and another decision took steps to facilitate the review of rail rate
reasonableness cases by eliminating certain evidentiary thresholds.
Linda Morgan as Board Chairman pressed the railroad industry to be
more directly accountable to the needs of their customers, and has
requested them to reach out directly to their shippers and employees.
This has allowed the railroads to reach more settlements with their
customers and employees than they have in many years. I commend the
Board for initiating government action that results in private sector
settlements. Ultimately this sort of settlement has greater chance of
realistic dispute resolution. Congress should feel fortunate to have

[[Page 848]]

an agency with the competence and credibility to move issues forward in
such a positive direction.
Because we need the Board, and because the Board has done a fine job,
I am here today supporting the introduction of a reauthorization bill.
I know that some tough legislative issues regarding transportation
regulation may come our way this session, and I look forward to working
with the Board and my colleagues on those matters. Whatever the
resolution of those matters, we need the stability and continuity in
addressing these issues that reauthorization legislation for the Board
will provide.
The Board, working with the law we gave it, has done its job. I want
to thank the Board in general, and Chairman Morgan in particular, who
has my unqualified support, for a job well done. The Board has been
confronted with some of the most difficult and fundamental issues to
challenge rail transportation in many years. The agency has met these
issues head on with forthrightness and resolve, taking into account the
interests of all parties. However, I am concerned for the Board's
future; the Board has not had the opportunity to bring in new personnel
to replace personnel that will be of retirement age. It is incumbent on
us that we provide this agency the necessary resources to adequately
train new personnel, and prepare them to address the rail and other
surface issues of the future.
I think that much credit is due the Board for facilitating more
private-sector dialogue, initiative, and resolution than has ever been
undertaken before, and for raising and tackling issues in ways that
have never been undertaken before. Once again, I commend the Board on a
job well done. The Nation needs agencies like the Board, and I
enthusiastically support the reauthorization bill.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Stevens, Mr.
Craig, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Ashcroft):
S. 99. A bill to provide for continuing in the absence of regular
appropriations for fiscal year 2000; to the Committee on
Appropriations.

government shutdown act of 1999

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I and Senator Hutchison, Senator
Stevens, Senator Craig, Senator Warner, and Senator Ashcroft are
introducing the Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 1999. This bill
creates a statutory continuing resolution as sort of a safety net
funding mechanism, which would be triggered only if the Fiscal Year
2000 appropriation acts do not become law or if there is no governing
continuing resolution in place after the start of Fiscal Year 2000.
Mr. President, this legislation is important. It must be done soon,
and I intend to seek early action on this bill. I believe the lesson of
the last 4 years is that we cannot allow the Government to be shut down
again, nor can we allow the threat of a Government shutdown to be so
imminent that we fiscal conservatives are forced to acquiesce to the
appropriation of billions of dollars for projects that do not serve our
nation's best interests.
What this legislation does is ensure that the Government will not
shut down and that Government shutdowns cannot be used for political
gain. This safety net continuing resolution basically would set
spending for fiscal year 2000 at 98 percent of 1999 funding levels. The
resolution would take effect only if the Congress and the President
have not completed their work on time.
Mr. President, let me make it clear that this bill only applies to
the Fiscal Year 2000 appropriations. I believe that it should be
expanded to make the statutory continuing resolution a permanent safety
net to prevent disruptive government shutdowns.
We all saw the effects of gridlock in the past. No one wins when the
Government shuts down. Shutdowns only confirm the American people's
suspicions that we are more interested in political gain than doing the
nation's business. The American people are tired of gridlock. They want
the Government to work for them, not against them.
Our Founding Fathers would have been ashamed of our inability to
execute the power of the purse in a responsible fashion. I am sure they
would have been quite shocked by the 27 days in late 1995 that the
Government was shut down, the 13 continuing resolutions that had to be
passed to provide temporary spending authority, and the almost $6
billion in blackmail money that was given to the Administration to
ensure that the Government did not shut down a third time in Fiscal
Year 1996.
Although Republicans shouldered the blame for the 1995 Government
shutdown, President Clinton and his colleagues were equally at fault
for using it for their political gain. Republicans were outmaneuvered
by President Clinton because we did not realize that he was willing to
use the budget process for his own political purposes.
We also cannot let the threat of another Government shutdown force us
to adopt another fiscal debacle like the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations
Bill. The political finagling that led to the extra $20 billion in
pork-barrel spending in that bill made mockery of the budget process
and insulted the intention of the framers to give Congress the power of
the purse. The only reason the Congress passed such a monstrosity was
the ever-present specter of another government shutdown and Washington
gridlock in an election year.
The Government Shutdown Act of 1999 does not erode the power of the
appropriators. It gives them ample opportunity to do their job. It is
only if the appropriations process is not completed by the beginning of
the fiscal year, that the safety net continuing resolution will go into
effect. In addition, I emphasize that entitlements are fully protected
in this legislation. The bill specifically states that entitlements
such as Social Security--as obligated by law--will be paid regardless
of what appropriations bills are passed or not passed.
We saw in 1995 how politically motivated government shutdowns hit all
Americans hard. In my State of Arizona, during the Government shutdown
the Grand Canyon was closed for the first time in 76 years. I heard
from people who worked close to the Grand Canyon. These were not
Government employees. These were independent small business men and
women. They told me that the shutdown cost them thousands of dollars
because people could not go to the park. According to a CRS report,
local communities near national parks alone lost an estimated $14.2
million per day in tourism revenues as a direct result of the
Government shutdown, for a total of nearly $400 million over the course
of the shutdown.
The cost of the last Government shutdown cannot be measured in just
dollars and cents. During the 1995 shutdown, millions of Americans
could not get crucial social services. For example, 10,000 new Medicare
applications, 212,000 Social Security card requests, 360,000 individual
office visits and 800,000 toll-free calls for information and
assistance were turned away each day. There were even more delays in
services for some of the most vulnerable in our society, including 13
million recipients of AFDC, 273,000 foster care children, over 100,000
children receiving adoption assistance services and over 100,000 Head
Start children--not to mention the new patients that were not accepted
into clinical research centers, the 7 million visitors who could not
attend national parks, or the 2 million visitors turned away at museums
and monuments. And the list goes on and on.
In addition, our Federal employees were left in fear wondering
whether they would be paid, would they have to go to work, would they
be able to pay their bills on time. In my State of Arizona, for
example, of the 40,383 Federal employees, over 15,000 of them were
furloughed in the 1995 Government shutdown.
As bad as the 1995 government shutdown was, the fiscal nightmare
known as the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, was equally
repulsive. This 4,000-page, 40-pound, nonamendable, budget-busting bill
provided over a half-trillion dollars to fund 10 Cabinet-level federal
departments. To make matters worse, this bill exceeded the budget
ceiling by $20 billion for what is

[[Page 849]]

euphemistically called emergency spending. Much of this so-called
``emergency spending'' is really everyday, garden-variety, special
interest, pork-barrel spending paid for by robbing billions from the
budget surplus.
This monstrous bill passed because Congress was forced to either pass
it, or face another government shutdown. The Government Shutdown
Prevention Act of 1999 would make it more difficult for opportunistic
politicians to put the American public at risk by threatening to
shutdown essential government functions if Congress cannot agree on
spending priorities and policies.
A 1991 GAO report confirmed that permanent funding lapse legislation
is a necessity. In their report they stated, ``Shutting down the
Government during temporary funding gaps is an inappropriate way to
encourage compromise on the budget.''
Let us show the American people that we have learned our lessons from
the 1995 Government shutdown and the 1998 fiscal debacle. Passing this
preventive measure will go a long way to restore America's faith that
politics or stalled negotiations will not stop Government operations.
It will show our constituents that we will never again allow a
Government shutdown or threat of a Government shutdown to be used for
political gain.
We anticipate strong support from the Leadership, and urge them to
move this legislation forward as soon as possible. This is must-pass
legislation. Neither party can afford another breach of faith with the
American people. Our constituents are tired of constantly being
disappointed by the actions of Congress and the President. That is why
this legislation is so important. Never again, should the American
public's hard-earned dollars be used as ransom to prevent a politically
motivated government shutdown.
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 100. A bill to grant the power to the President to reduce budget
authority; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on
Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977,
with instructions that if one Committee reports, the other Committee
have thirty days to report or be discharged.

the separate enrollment act of 1999

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I will reintroduce the Separate
Enrollment Act of 1999. This bil requires each targeted tax benefit or
spending item in legislation to be enrolled as a separate bill before
it is sent to the President. If the President chooses to veto one of
these items, each of these vetoes would be returned to Congress
separately for an override vote.
Last year, the Supreme Court struck down the line item vote on
Constitutional grounds in a 6-3 decision. I was very saddened by this
decision. Polls from previous years indicate that 83 percent of the
American people support giving the President the line-item veto
authority. We need the line-item veto to restore balance to the federal
budget process.
The Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Line-Item Veto Act on the
basis that the Constitution requires every bill to be presented to the
President for his approval or disapproval. In other words, the decision
was not based on the concept that transferring power to the President
of the United States lacked constitutionally, but the fact that bills
are to be sent to the President for approval in their entirety.
Separate enrollment as a line-item veto tool is not a new concept.
This concept is not controversial. The Senate adopted S. 4, a separate
enrollment bill in the 104th Congress, by a vote of 69 to 29.
Legal scholars contend that the separate enrollment concept is
constitutional. Congress has the right to present a bill to the
President of the United States. Separate enrollment merely addresses
the question of what constitutes a bill. It does not erode or interfere
with the presentment of the bill to the President. Under the rulemaking
clause, Congress alone can determine the procedures for defining and
enrolling a bill. Separate enrollment is constitutional and will
clearly work.
Separate enrollment, as a line-item veto tool, will be a vital force
in eliminating wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel spending.
Unfortunately, as we saw last year, pork-barrel spending is alive and
well.
On October 21, 1998, Congress passed the FY 1999 Omnibus
Appropriations Bill--the worst example of pork-barrel spending in my
memory. This was a 4,000 page, 40-pound, non-amendable, budget-busting
bill which provided over a half-trillion dollars to fund 10 Cabinet-
level federal departments. The bill exceeded the budget ceiling by $20
billion for what is euphemistically called emergency spending, much of
which is really everyday, garden-variety, special-interest, pork-barrel
spending, paid for by robbing billions from the budget surplus.
The omnibus spending bill made a mockery of the Congress' role in
fiscal matters. It was a betrayal of our responsibility to spend the
taxpayers' dollars wisely and enact laws and policies that reflect the
best interests of all Americans, rather than the special interests of a
few.
We cannot afford this magnitude of park-barrel spending when we have
accumulated a multi-trillion dollar national debt. Right now, today, we
use a huge portion of our federal budget to make the interest payments
on the national debt. In fact, the annual interest payment almost
equals the entire budget for national defense. We should be paying down
the national debt, saving Social Security, and providing tax cuts for
hard-working middle class Americans, not indulging in wasteful,
unnecessary spending.
The objective of the Separate Enrollment bill, and the Line-Item Veto
before it, is to curb wasteful pork-barrel spending by giving the
President the authority to eliminate individual spending items. The
Separate Enrollment Act of 1999 will be our new tool to restore fiscal
responsibility to the way we spend Americans' hard-earned dollars.
This is not a partisan issue. The issue is fiscal responsibility. We
have a President, we have 100 Senators, and we have 435
Representatives. It is hard to place responsibility upon any one person
for profligate spending. Thus, no one is accountable for our runaway
budget process.
Past Presidents have sought the line-time veto. Congress finally
agreed in 1996, when we passed the Line-Item Veto Act, to give the
President the ability to surgically remove wasteful spending for
appropriations and authorization bills. It would also establish greater
accountability in the Executive branch for fiscal decisions and provide
much-needed checks and balances on Congressional spending sprees.
Unfortunately when given the Line-Item Veto authority in 1997, the
President failed to exercise the authority in a meaningful fashion. Of
over $8 billion in wasteful spending, he excised $491 million from the
annual appropriations bills. And then the Supreme Court struck the
Line-Item Veto Act down.
Restoring this power this year in the form of the Separate Enrollment
Act would if exercised responsibly by the President, reduce the
excesses of the congressional budget process that focus on locality-
specific earmarking and cater to special interests, not the national
interest.
Mr. President, I simply ask my colleagues to be fair and reasonable
when addressing the issue of fiscal responsibility. The line-item veto,
in the form of separate enrollment, is vital to curbing wasteful pork-
barrel spending and restoring the American people's respect for their
elected representatives.
______

By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Craig, Mr.
Fitzgerald, and Mr. Cochran):
S. 101. A bill to promote trade in United States agricultural
commodities, livestock, and value-added products, and to prepare for
future bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations; to the Committee
on Finance.

UNITED STATES AGRICULTURAL TRADE ACT OF 1999

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
open foreign markets for U.S. agricultural exports and raise the
profile of agriculture in our nation's trade agenda.

[[Page 850]]

By enacting the 1996 FAIR Act, commonly known as Freedom to Farm, we
gave farmers the right to make planting decisions themselves, free from
government controls. But the FAIR Act is a compact. Freedom to Farm
means freedom to sell. In exchange for phasing out subsidies, Congress
promised its efforts to secure free, fair, and open markets for U.S.
agricultural products. The importance of exports to U.S. agriculture
has never been greater. This legislation will improve opportunities,
allowing us to take advantage of our dominant position in world food
trade.
Each year, agricultural products make a positive contribution to our
international balance of payments. No sector of the U.S. economy is
more critically tied to international trade than agriculture.
Approximately three out of ten acres of our agricultural production is
exported. Farmers are reliant on the ability to export. We can only
secure our farmers' and ranchers' future opportunities by removing
trade barriers--those we impose on ourselves and those imposed by
others.
Mr. President, this bill addresses several items, none of which is
more important than sanctions reform. Unilateral economic sanctions
often keep our farmers out of major markets. Such sanctions do not
preclude the targeted country from buying agricultural commodities
elsewhere. Rather, sanctions often have a more profound effect on our
own country. U.S. competitors are often quick to offset the effect of
our sanctions, in the process harming U.S. commercial interests.
Contracts are lost and our status as a reliable business partner
suffers. A cardinal test of foreign policy is to determine that, when
we use sanctions internationally, our actions do less harm to ourselves
than to others. Unilateral food sanctions fail that test.
Bans on food exports strike at the most basic human need, the
availability of food. Authoritarian regimes can survive food sanctions.
It is the people of these nations that suffer. The use of food as a
weapon should, in most cases, be abandoned. This legislation exempts
from unilateral economic sanctions humanitarian and commercial farm
exports and gives the President the authority to waive the food
exemption.
Mr. President, sanctions reform is only one aspect of improving
market access. Significant tariff and non-tariff barriers still inhibit
the free flow of agricultural goods. The World Trade Organization will
hold an important meeting later this year in our own country. The talks
which will commence at this meeting offer an important opportunity to
expand overseas markets for our agricultural exports. One goal of this
legislation is to achieve more fair and open conditions of trade, and
the bill I introduce today provides important guidelines for these
upcoming negotiations. It aims to open foreign markets and eliminate
unfair and negative trade policy. Furthermore, a ``special 301''
provision for agriculture is included in this bill. This language is
similar to S.219 which was introduced by Senator Daschle and Senator
Grassley in the 105th Congress and generated bi-partisan support within
agriculture. It provides for an investigative process specifically
tailored to agricultural trade. The U.S. Trade Representative will use
this process to identify those countries which employ unfair trade
practices against U.S. agricultural commodities and value-added
products. Once in place, remedies which level the playing field are
provided. This authority is important as we strive to break down trade
barriers and eliminate practices which foreign countries use to bar
U.S. agricultural exports.
The most important thing we can give to farmers is the ability to
export their products abroad. We can give to our farmers the enhanced
ability to sell their products in existing and untapped markets. Mr.
President, U.S. agriculture is the most productive in the world. This
legislation will allow us to take advantage of that position. I ask
unanimous consent that the legislation and a summary be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 101

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 ``United States Agricultural
Trade Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. OBJECTIVES FOR AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATIONS.

It is the sense of Congress that the principal agricultural
trade negotiating objectives of the United States for future
multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations, including the
World Trade Organization, shall be to achieve, on an
expedited basis, and to the maximum extent feasible, more
open and fair conditions for trade in agricultural
commodities by--
(1) developing, strengthening, and clarifying rules for
agricultural trade, including disciplines on restrictive or
trade-distorting import and export practices, including--
(A) enhancing the operation and effectiveness of the
relevant Uruguay Round Agreements designed to define, deter,
and discourage the persistent use of unfair trade practices;
and
(B) enforcing and strengthening rules of the World Trade
Organization regarding--
(i) trade-distorting practices of state trading
enterprises; and
(ii) the acts, practices, or policies of a foreign
government which unreasonably--
(I) require that substantial direct investment in the
foreign country be made as a condition for carrying on
business in the foreign country;
(II) require that intellectual property be licensed to the
foreign country or to any firm of the foreign country; or
(III) delay or preclude implementation of a report of a
dispute panel of the World Trade Organization;
(2) increasing United States agricultural exports by
eliminating barriers to trade (including transparent and
nontransparent barriers);
(3) eliminating other specific constraints to fair trade
and more open market access in foreign markets, such as
export subsidies, quotas, and other nontariff import
barriers;
(4) developing, strengthening, and clarifying rules that
address practices that unfairly limit United States market
access opportunities or distort agricultural markets to the
detriment of the United States, including--
(A) unfair or trade-distorting activities of state trading
enterprises and other administrative mechanisms that result
in inadequate price transparency;
(B) unjustified restrictions or commercial requirements
affecting new technologies, including biotechnology;
(C) unjustified sanitary or phytosanitary restrictions; and
(D) restrictive rules in the establishment and
administration of tariff-rate quotas;
(5) ensuring that there are reliable suppliers of
agricultural commodities in international commerce by
encouraging countries to treat foreign buyers no less
favorably than domestic buyers of the commodity or product
involved; and
(6) eliminating barriers for meeting the food needs of an
increasing world population through the use of biotechnology
by ensuring market access to United States commodities
derived from biotechnology that is scientifically defensible,
opposing the establishment of protectionist trade measures
disguised as health standards, and protesting continual
delays by other countries in their approval processes--which
constitute non-tariff trade barriers.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act, the terms ``agricultural commodity''
and ``United States agricultural commodity'' have the
meanings provided in section 102 (1) and (7) of the
Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, respectively.

SEC. 4. AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, LIVESTOCK, AND PRODUCTS
EXEMPT FROM SANCTIONS.

(a) Definition--Unilateral Economic Sanction.--The term
``unilateral economic sanction'' means any prohibition,
restriction, or condition on economic activity, including
economic assistance, with respect to a foreign country or
foreign entity that is imposed by the United States for
reasons of foreign policy or national security, except in a
case in which the United States imposes the measure pursuant
to a multilateral regime and the other members of that regime
have agreed to impose substantially equivalent measures.
(b) Exemption.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of a
unilateral economic sanction imposed by the United States on
another country, the following shall be exempt from the
unilateral economic sanction--
(A) programs administered through Public Law 480 (7 U.S.C.
1701 et. seq.);
(B) programs administered through section 416 of the
Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431);
(C) the program administered through section 1113 of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736-1); and
(D) commercial sales and humanitarian assistance involving
agricultural commodities.

[[Page 851]]

(2) Determination by president.--If the President
determines that the exemption under paragraph (1) should not
apply to the unilateral economic sanction for reasons of
foreign policy or national security, the President may
include the activities described in paragraph (1) in the
unilateral economic sanction.
(c) Current Sanctions.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the exemption
under subsection (b) shall apply to unilateral economic
sanctions that are in effect as of the date of enactment of
this Act.
(2) Presidential review.--The President shall, within 90
days of the date of enactment of this Act, review all
unilateral economic sanctions under this subsection to
determine whether the exemption under subsection (b) should
apply to the sanction.
(3) Effective date.--The exemption under subsection (b)
shall become effective for unilateral economic sanctions that
are in effect on the date of enactment of this Act 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act unless the President
has determined that the exemption should not apply to the
sanction.
(d) Report.--
(1) In general.--If the President determines that the
exemption under subsection (b) should not apply to a
unilateral economic sanction, the President shall provide a
report to the Committee on Agriculture in the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry in the Senate--
(A) in the case of a unilateral economic sanction reviewed
under subsection (c), within 15 days from the date of the
determination in paragraph (2) of that subsection; and
(B) in the case of a unilateral economic sanction that is
imposed after the date of enactment of this Act, at the time
of the imposition of the sanction.
(2) Contents of report.--The report shall contain--
(A) an explanation why, because of reasons of foreign
policy or national security, the exemption should not apply
to the unilateral economic sanction; and
(B) an assessment by the Secretary of Agriculture--
(i) regarding export sales--
(I) in the case of a sanction in effect as of the date of
enactment of this Act, whether markets in the sanctioned
country or countries present a substantial trade opportunity
for export sales of a United States agricultural commodity;
or
(II) in the case of any other sanction, the extent to which
any country or countries to be sanctioned or likely to be
sanctioned are markets that accounted for, in the preceding
calendar year, more than 3 percent of all export sales from
the United States of an agricultural commodity;
(ii) regarding the effect on United States agricultural
commodities--
(I) in the case of a sanction in effect as of the date of
enactment of this Act, the potential for exports of United
States commodities in the sanctioned country or countries;
and
(II) in the case of any other sanction, the likelihood that
exports of agricultural commodities from the United States
will be affected by the unilateral economic sanction or by
retaliation by any country to be sanctioned or likely to be
sanctioned, and specific commodities which are most likely to
be affected;
(iii) regarding producer income--
(I) in the case of a sanction in effect as of the date of
enactment of this Act, the potential for increasing the
income of producers of the commodities involved; and
(II) in the case of any other sanction, the likely effect
on incomes of producers of the commodities involved;
(iv) regarding displacement of United States suppliers--
(I) in the case of a sanction in effect as of the date of
enactment of this Act, the potential for increased
competition for United States suppliers of the agricultural
commodity in countries that are not subject to a sanction;
and
(II) in the case of any other sanction, the extent to which
the unilateral economic sanction would permit foreign
suppliers to replace United States suppliers; and
(v) regarding the reputation of United States farmers as
reliable suppliers--
(I) in the case of a sanction in effect as of the date of
enactment of this Act, whether removing the sanction would
increase the reputation of United States farmers as reliable
suppliers of agricultural commodities in general, and of
specific commodities identified by the Secretary; and
(II) in the case of any other sanction, the likely effect
of the proposed sanction on the reputation of United States
farmers as reliable suppliers of agricultural commodities in
general, and of specific commodities identified by the
Secretary.
(e) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection
(c)(3), this section shall become effective upon the date of
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AND CONSULTATION FOR
AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATIONS.

Section 161 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2211) is
amended by adding at the end a new subsection (d) that reads
as follows--
``(d) Congressional Oversight Group for Agricultural
Negotiations.--
``(1) There is established a Congressional Oversight Group
for Agricultural Negotiations (Oversight Group) that shall
provide oversight and guidance with respect to agricultural
trade policy and negotiation of agricultural trade issues.

``(A) Subject to clauses (i) and (ii), the Oversight Group
shall consist of 3 members of the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate and 3 members of the
Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives.
``(i) The President pro tempore of the Senate, upon the
recommendation of the Chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, shall select two
members from the majority party, and one member from the
minority party, of the Senate.
``(ii) The Speaker of the House of Representatives, upon
the recommendation of the Chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture, shall select 2 members from the majority party,
and one member from the minority party, of the House of
Representatives.
``(B) Members of the House and Senate who are selected as
members of the Oversight Group shall be accredited by the
United States Trade Representative as official advisers to
the United States delegations to international conferences,
meetings, and negotiating sessions relating to agricultural
trade policy and negotiation of agricultural trade issues.
``(2) All negotiating proposals by the United States and
negotiations that affect agricultural trade shall be reviewed
by the Oversight Group prior to an agreement being initialed
by the President.
``(3) All information about negotiating proposals by the
United States and foreign countries affecting agricultural
trade negotiations shall be made available to the Oversight
Group by the United States Trade Representative.
``(4) Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the United
States Trade Representative shall establish guidelines for
ensuring the useful and timely supply of information to the
Oversight Group and the communication of the oversight and
guidance by the Oversight Group to the United States Trade
Representative.
``(A) The guidelines shall establish procedures for the
United States Trade Representative to provide to the
Oversight Group--
``(i) information regarding the principal multilateral and
bilateral negotiating objectives affecting agricultural
trade, and the progress being made toward their achievement;
``(ii) information regarding the implementation,
administration, and effectiveness of recently concluded
multilateral and bilateral agricultural trade agreements and
the resolution of agricultural trade disputes;
``(iii) a schedule for an initial meeting, prior to the
commencement of negotiations involving agricultural trade,
between the Oversight Group and the United States Trade
Representative, about the objectives of the negotiations;
``(iv) written or oral briefings about the status of
ongoing negotiations involving agricultural trade;
``(v) prior to the President initialing the trade
agreement, written or oral briefings about the results of
negotiations involving agricultural trade;
``(vi) information about changes in United States laws that
are necessary as a result of the negotiations; and
``(vii) a schedule and procedure for the Oversight Group to
provide advice and guidance to the United States Trade
Representative regarding--
``(I) the negotiations involving agricultural trade; and
``(II) changes in United States laws that are necessary as
a result of the negotiations.
``(B) The United States Trade Representative shall meet
with the Oversight Group at a minimum on a quarterly basis,
and as needed during a negotiation involving agricultural
trade.
``(C) If determined necessary by either party,
consultations between the Oversight Group and the United
States Trade Representative may be conducted in executive
session.

SEC. 6. SALE OR BARTER OF FOOD ASSISTANCE.

It is the sense of Congress that the amendment to section
203 of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act
of 1954 (Pub. L. 480) made in section 208 of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement And Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law
101-127) was intended to allow the sale or barter of United
States agricultural commodities included in United States
food assistance only within the recipient country or
countries adjacent to the recipient country, unless such sale
or barter within the recipient country or adjacent
countries--
(1) is not practicable; and
(2) will not disrupt commercial markets for the
agricultural commodity involved.

SEC. 7. TREATMENT OF UNITED STATES AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES,
LIVESTOCK, AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.

(a) Identification Required.--Chapter 8 of title I of the
Trade Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the
following:

[[Page 852]]

``SEC. 183. IDENTIFICATION OF COUNTRIES THAT ENGAGE IN UNFAIR
TRADE PRACTICES AFFECTING UNITED STATES
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES.

``(a) In General.--Not later than the date that is 30 days
after the date on which the annual report is required to be
submitted to Congressional committees under section 181(b),
the United States Trade Representative (hereafter in this
section referred to as the `Trade Representative') shall
identify--
``(1) those foreign countries that--
``(A) deny fair and equitable market access to United
States agricultural commodities through discriminatory
nontariff trade barriers;
``(B) employ unfair export subsidies that adversely affect
market share of United States exports of agricultural
commodities; or
``(C) unreasonably delay or preclude implementation of a
report of a dispute panel of the World Trade Organization; or
``(2) those foreign countries identified under paragraph
(1) that are determined by the Trade Representative to be
priority foreign countries.
``(b) Special Rules for Identification.--
``(1) Criteria.--In identifying priority foreign countries
under subsection (a)(2), the Trade Representative shall only
identify those foreign countries that--
``(A) engage in or have the most onerous or egregious acts,
policies, or practices that deny fair and equitable market
access to United States agricultural commodities;
``(B) engage in discriminatory nontariff trade barriers for
the importation of United States agricultural commodities
that are not based on public health concerns or cannot be
substantiated by reliable analytical methods;
``(C) use unfair export subsidies;
``(D) unreasonably delay or preclude implementation of a
report of a dispute panel of the World Trade Organization;
``(E) whose acts, policies, or practices described in
subparagraphs (A)-(D) have the greatest adverse impact
(actual or potential) on the relevant United States
agricultural commodities; or
``(F) that are not negotiating in good faith about adopting
fair and equitable trade practices, or making significant
progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations, in
regards to United States agricultural commodities.
``(2) Consultation and consideration requirements.--In
identifying priority foreign countries under subsection
(a)(2), the Trade Representative shall--
``(A) consult with the Secretary of Agriculture and other
appropriate officers of the Federal Government; and
``(B) take into account information from such sources as
may be available to the Trade Representative and such
information as may be submitted to the Trade Representative
by interested persons, including information contained in
reports submitted under section 181(b) and petitions
submitted under section 302.
``(3) Factual basis requirement.--The Trade Representative
may identify a foreign country under subsection (a)(1) only
if the Trade Representative finds that there is a factual
basis for identifying the foreign country as engaging in a
trade practice under subsection (a)(1).
``(4) Consideration of historical factors.--In identifying
foreign countries under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection
(a), the Trade Representative shall take into account--
``(A) the history of agricultural trade relations with the
foreign country, including any previous identification under
subsection (a)(2); and
``(B) the history of efforts of the United States, and the
response of the foreign country, to achieve fair trade
practices affecting trade in United States agricultural
commodities.
``(c) Revocations and Additional Identifications.--
``(1) Authority to act at any time.--If information
available to the Trade Representative indicates that such
action is appropriate, the Trade Representative may at any
time--
``(A) revoke the identification of any foreign country as a
priority foreign country under this section; or
``(B) identify any foreign country as a priority foreign
country under this section.
``(2) Revocation reports.--The Trade Representative shall
include in the semiannual report submitted to the Congress
under section 309(3) a detailed explanation of the reasons
for the revocation under paragraph (1) of the identification
of any foreign country as a priority foreign country under
this section.
``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the terms
``agricultural commodity'' and ``United States agricultural
commodity'' have the meanings provided in section 102 (1) and
(7) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, respectively.
``(e) Publication.--The Trade Representative shall publish
in the Federal Register a list of foreign countries
identified under subsection (a) and shall make such revisions
to the list as may be required by reason of the action under
subsection (c).
``(f) Annual Report.--The Trade Representative shall, not
later than the date by which countries are identified under
subsection (a), transmit to the Committee on Ways and Means
and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance and the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate, a report on the actions taken under this section
during the 12 months preceding such report, and the reasons
for such actions, including a description of progress made in
achieving fair and equitable market access for United States
agricultural commodities.
(b) Remedial Actions to Unfair Trade Practices Involving
United States Agricultural Commodities, Livestock, and
Agricultural Products.--
(1) Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2411)
is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1) by inserting ``section 183(a) or''
after ``determines under'';
(B) in subsection (b) by inserting ``section 183(a) or''
after ``determines under'';
(C) in subsection (c)(1)--
(i) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``section; or'' and
inserting ``section;''
(ii) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``paragraph (4).'' and
inserting ``paragraph (4); or''; and
(iii) by adding a new subparagraph (E) that reads as
follows:
``(E) with respect to an investigation of a country
identified under section 183(a)--
``(I) take any action authorized under this subsection; and
``(II) to request that the Secretary of Agriculture target
the use of existing United States export programs that are
administered within the Department of Agriculture to the
commodity that is subject to the unfair trade practice by the
priority foreign country.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the
Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 182 the following:

``Sec. 183. Identification of Countries That Engage in Unfair Trade
Practices Affecting United States Agricultural
Commodities.''
(d) Investigation Required.--Subparagraph (A) of section
302(b)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2412(b)(2)(A))
is amended by inserting ``or 183(a)(2)'' after ``section
182(a)(2)'' in the matter preceding clause (i).
(e) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subparagraph (D) of section 302(b)(2) of such Act is
amended by inserting ``concerning intellectual property
rights that is'' after ``any investigation''.
(2) Subparagraph (B) of section 304(a)(3) of such Act is
amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii);
(B) by inserting ``or'' at the end of clause (iii); and
(C) by inserting immediately after clause (iii) the
following new clause:
``(iv) the foreign country involved in the investigation is
making substantial progress in drafting or implementing
legislative or administrative measures that ensure the
country engages in fair and equitable trade practices
affecting United States agricultural commodities.''.

SEC.8. REALLOCATION OF UNOBLIGATED FUNDS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall, on or
about April 1 and July 1 of each fiscal year determine
whether unobligated funds exist out of funds made available
for the fiscal year for the Export Enhancement Program.
(b) Transfer to Food Assistance.
The Secretary may, on or about April 1 and July 1 of each
fiscal year, with respect to any unobligated funds identified
under subsection (a), apply the funds to--
(1) one or more of the programs administered through Public
Law 480 (7 U.S.C. 1701 et. seq.);
(2) the purchase of agricultural commodities for donation
through one of the programs administered through section 416
of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431); and
(3) programs administered through Title II of the Trade Act
of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5621-5641).
(c) Use Within Same Fiscal Year. All funds identified under
subsection (a) shall be obligated within the same fiscal
year. Such funds may not be transferred under subsection (b)
in a fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year of the
determination in subsection (a).
____

Summary of the United States Agricultural Trade Act of 1999

1. Goals for Trade Negotiations--United States objectives
for future multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations
affecting agriculture, including the World Trade Organization
(WTO), are to--increase market access for United States
agricultural commodities, livestock, and value-added
products, particularly for new products derived from
biotechnology; eliminate nontariff import barriers such as
quotas, discriminatory tariff-rate quotas, and unjustified
sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions; eliminate export
subsidies; eliminate trade-distorting practices of state
trading enterprises; enforce current WTO rules and develop
new rules that allow increased market access; and strengthen
rules for implementing WTO dispute panel decisions.
2. Sanctions Reform--International trade in United States
agricultural commodities, livestock, value-added products,
and food assistance, are exempted from unilateral economic
sanctions imposed by the United

[[Page 853]]

States, if the transaction entails commercial sales or
humanitarian assistance involving agricultural products.
If the President determines that this exemption should not
apply to a current or future sanction because of foreign
policy or national security considerations, the President can
override the exemption. The President and the Secretary of
Agriculture must provide a report to Congress for each
sanction for which the President determines the exemption
should not apply.
3. Congressional Agricultural Oversight Group--A
Congressional Oversight Group, made up of House and Senate
Agriculture Committee members, is established as a consulting
and advisory group with the United States Trade
Representative for future WTO and other multilateral and
bilateral trade negotiations.
4. Food Assistance Resolution--A Sense of Congress
resolution regarding the monetization of agricultural
commodities in United States food assistance is included. The
1996 Farm Bill allowed such monetization. The resolution
states that monetization should occur only in the recipient
country or in adjacent countries, unless this is not
practicable.
5. Super 301 for Agriculture--A procedure is established
within the Office of the United States Trade Representative
to identify countries that engage in unfair trade practices
against U.S. agricultural commodities, livestock, and value-
added products. Unfair trade practices in this context are
discriminatory nontariff trade barriers, unfair export
subsidies, and refusal by a country to implement a decision
of a WTO dispute panel. This procedure parallels an
investigative procedure that exists in current U.S. trade law
for all U.S. products. If the Trade Representative makes such
a determination, the Trade Representative is authorized to
adopt remedies already provided in United States trade law,
and the Secretary of Agriculture has the discretion to target
the use of existing export programs within USDA to the
commodity that is subject to the unfair trade practice.
6. Commodity Program Reallocation--The Secretary of
Agriculture, for each fiscal year, is given the discretion to
reallocate unobligated funds of the Export Enhancement
Program to one of the Public Law 480 food assistance
programs, the Food for Progress program, or one of the
section 416 commodity donation programs. All affected funds
must be obligated within the same fiscal year.
______

By Mr. ABRAHAM:
S. 102. A bill to provide that the Secretary of the Senate and the
Clerk of the House of Representatives shall include an estimate of
Federal retirement benefits for each Member of Congress in their
semiannual reports, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.

THE CONGRESSIONAL PENSION DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1999

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Congressional Pension Disclosure Act of 1999 which would require the
Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives
to disclose information relating to the pensions of Members of
Congress. This legislation would require these officers to include in
their semiannual reports to Congress detailed information relating to
the Members pensions. The semiannual reports would then be available to
the public for inspection.
The reports would include the individual pension contributions of
Members; an estimate of annuities which they would receive based on the
earliest possible date they would be eligible to receive annuity
payments by reason of retirement; and any other information necessary
to enable the public to accurately compute the Federal retirement
benefits of each Member based on various assumptions of years of
service and age of separation from service by reason of retirement.
The purpose of this legislation is to afford citizens their rightful
opportunity to learn how public funds are being utilized. The taxpayers
are not only entitled to know the various forms of compensation their
elected officials are being paid, they are also entitled to make
decisions about the reasonableness of such compensation.
My bill would make this information conveniently available to the
public. I believe that this bill would eliminate the present shroud of
secrecy which has surrounded the congressional pension system and give
the public better access to information regarding their representatives
in Congress.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill and section by section analysis
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 102

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

SECTION 1. DISCLOSURE OF ESTIMATES OF FEDERAL RETIREMENT
BENEFITS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

(a) In General.--Section 105(a) of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 1965 (2 U.S.C. 104a; Public Law 88-454;
78 Stat. 550) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(4) The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the
House of Representatives shall include in each semiannual
report submitted under paragraph (1), with respect to Members
of Congress, as applicable--
``(A) the total amount of individual contributions made by
each Member to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability
Fund and the Thrift Savings Fund under chapters 83 and 84 of
title 5, United States Code, for all Federal service
performed by the Member as a Member of Congress and as a
Federal employee;
``(B) an estimate of the annuity each Member would be
entitled to receive under chapters 83 and 84 of such title
based on the earliest possible date to receive annuity
payments by reason of retirement (other than disability
retirement) which begins after the date of expiration of the
term of office such Member is serving; and
``(C) any other information necessary to enable the public
to accurately compute the Federal retirement benefits of each
Member based on various assumptions of years of service and
age of separation from service by reason of retirement.''.
(b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
____

Section-by-Section Analysis of The Congressional Pension Disclosure Act
of 1999

A bill to publicly disclose Federal retirement benefits of Members of
Congress

Section 1 (a). Amending legislation.
This section provides that Section 105(a) of the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1965 is amended to
add the following new paragraph:
``The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives shall include in each semiannual report
submitted under paragraph (1), with respect to Members of
Congress, as applicable:''
Section 1 (A). Contributions to retirement funds.
The semiannual report would state the total amount of
contributions many by each Member to the Federal retirement
plans (FERS or CSRS) while they performed Federal service as
a Member of Congress and/or a Federal employee.
Section 1 (B). Estimate of annuity.
The semiannual report would include an estimate of the
annuity each member would be entitled to receive--based upon
the earliest possible date of retirement (other than
disability retirement). This would be calculated based upon
the expiration of the term of office the Member is serving.
Section 1 (C). Additional information.
Included in the semiannual report would be any additional
information that would help the public accurately compute the
Federal retirement benefits of members based on years of
service and age of separation from service by reason of
retirement.
Section 1(b). Effective date.
The bill would take effect 1 year after the date of
enactment.
______

By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
S. 103. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
eliminate the temporary increase in unemployment tax; to the Committee
on Finance.

legislation to repeal the temporary unemployment surtax

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to repeal
the ``temporary'' 0.2 percent Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) surtax.
The ``temporary'' surtax was enacted in 1976 by Congress to repay the
general fund of the Treasury for funds borrowed by the unemployment
trust fund. Although the borrowings were repaid in 1987, Congress has
continued to extend the surtax in tax bill after tax bill.
Since 1987, Congress has used extension of the surtax to help raise
revenue to pay for tax packages. In fact, the surtax was most recently
extended to help pay for the 1997 tax bill. The tax takes money out of
the private economy for no valid reason.
By repealing the surtax, Congress will honor a promise that it made
when the surtax was first enacted. Small businesses were told
repeatedly that the tax was temporary and would be repealed when it was
no longer needed to

[[Page 854]]

finance the unemployment tax system. Clearly a tax is not temporary
when it has already been in place for over twenty years. I would
suggest at a minimum that if we are going to keep extending this tax,
that we be honest with the American worker and small business owner and
stop calling this tax ``temporary.''
Based on the original purpose, the surtax is no longer needed. The
economy is experiencing the highest level of employment in decades, and
all state unemployment funds have surpluses. It is inappropriate for
the government to continue to raise excess unemployment taxes and then
use the surplus for purposes completely unrelated to unemployment.
Repeal of the temporary unemployment surtax will also be beneficial
to small businesses. The surtax is especially hard on the small
businesses because they are often labor intensive. Any payroll tax is
added directly to the employer's payroll costs. In fact, according to
the National Federation of Independent Business, payroll taxes are the
fastest growing federal tax burden on small business. It is also
important to note that the payroll taxes must be paid whether the
business experiences a profit or a loss.
As a former small businessman myself, I am particularly aware of this
fact. I suspect that my view is similar to the view of many small
business owners. It is one thing to have a surtax when unemployment is
high and the surtax is necessary. However, it is totally unjustified
when unemployment is at the lowest level in three decades.
Repeal of the 0.2 percent surtax will reduce the tax burden on
employers and workers by $6 billion over the next five years.
Lower payroll taxes mean higher wages for workers. Although the
employer appears to fully pay for the unemployment surtax and other
payroll taxes, the economic evidence is strong that the cost is
actually passed to workers in the form of lower wages.
Consistent tax relief will help to ensure that our economy remains
the strongest and most vibrant in the world. Low taxes reduce
unemployment and help ensure that future surtaxes are unnecessary.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record, an editorial from the Wall Street Journal, and
several charts that demonstrate the surpluses in each state fund be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 103

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

SECTION. 1 REPEAL OF TEMPORARY UNEMPLOYMENT TAX.

Section 3301 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to rate of unemployment tax) is amended--
(1) by striking ``2007'' in paragraph (1) and inserting
``1999''; and
(2) by striking ``2008'' in paragraph (2) and inserting
``2000''.
____

[From the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 28, 1998]

FUTile

The nation's secondary schools are gearing up to spend
several hundred million in federal grants on ``school to
work'' programs that purport to reduce youth unemployment.
Indeed, under the 1993 School to Work Act, federal and state
bureaucrats are running around the country like so many job
fairies ``creating'' employment with a wave of the
bureaucratic wand. If job growth is really what the
government is after though, we know a simpler way to achieve
it: kill off FUTA.
Employers know FUTA as the 0.8% payroll tax they must pay
to Washington on the first $7,000 of every employee's wages.
But this ridiculous-sounding levy--the letters stand for
Federal Unemployment Tax Act--is more than just another
troubling mandate. It is an object lesson in how a federal
employment program can run amok.
When lawmakers originally imposed the tax to build a
network of unemployment services in 1939, they were
responding to an extraordinary problem: joblessness ranged
close to 18%. Yet long after the Depression faded, FUTA
remained on the books.
Like most other New Deal acronyms, FUTA achieved tax
immortality, surviving decades of prosperity. The mid-1970's'
spike in unemployment created an excuse to ``temporarily''
increase FUTA rates. Needless to say, that increase was never
reversed. In-deed, the third largest tax hike in the Taxpayer
Relief Act of 1997 was an extension of a FUTA surtax to 2007.
Today, joblessness is at a historic low. Yet FUTA tax rates
are higher than they were in 1975, when unemployment was
8.5%.
Then there's the question of what FUTA revenues actually
pay for. FUTA isn't supposed to do anything as useful as pay
unemployment benefits to workers who have been laid off.
Employers are the ones who have to do that. No, FUTA money is
earmarked toward salaries for bureaucrats in state
unemployment offices. This is a dubious project in any era,
and an absurd one in a time of worker shortage like this one.
And here's the kicker: Much of the FUTA money doesn't even
make it to these superfluous employment offices. Mark Wilson
of the Heritage Foundation found that little more than half
of the $6.1 billion in FUTA revenues collected in 1997 ended
up being spent on FUTA's official mandate. The rest of the
money went straight to the federal government's ``general
revenues,'' traded against Treasury IOUs. In other words,
right into the government's maw.
Washington robs FUTA in the same way it steals money from
Social Security's trust fund till. As the years pass, of
course, the burgeoning economy is making FUTA an even better
cash machine. Today the FUTA trust fund contains $23.1
billion, about double what it held just three years ago. No
wonder lawmakers get all sanctimonious about FDR when the
topic of limiting FUTA comes up.
This is a shame, since FUTA does indeed kill more jobs than
it finds. The FUTA tax, like Social Security, the minimum
wage, or other mandates, hits businesses on the margin, where
additional work is created. In times of downsizing, as we saw
in the early 1990s, these bugaboos drive layoffs.
The National Federation of Independent Business, a small
business lobby, lists FUTA as one of the big employment
burdens. FUTA also punishes workers who do have jobs, since
employers pass along the costs to them in the form of lower
wages. Sen. Wayne Allard (R., Colo.) has put forward
legislation to pare FUTA. It is a reform long past due.
____

STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION SYSTEM RESERVES AND RATIO OF RESERVES TO TOTAL WAGES BY STATE AND YEAR, 1991-1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net reserves as of Dec. 31 of each year (thousands) Ratio of year-end reserves to total wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------- (percent)
State --------------------------------------------
1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................ $534,470 $551,842 $570,118 $550,280 $585,725 1.61 1.77 1.94 1.96 2.24
Alaska................................. 201,017 210,563 232,911 232,320 243,155 3.56 3.81 4.32 4.57 4.98
Arizona................................ 534,640 432,449 368,782 372,423 437,667 1.48 1.33 1.26 1.36 1.71
Arkansas............................... 200,866 169,795 134,432 81,340 103,629 1.12 1.02 0.87 0.55 0.76
California............................. 2,104,220 2,092,695 2,450,402 2,786,713 4,190,197 0.68 0.72 0.87 0.99 1.52
Colorado............................... 480,582 434,482 390,435 339,246 312,036 1.22 1.21 1.15 1.10 1.09
Connecticut............................ 116,692 3,311 1,062 (653,215) (353,767) 0.27 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delaware............................... 271,807 244,013 225,943 218,719 223,685 3.24 3.14 3.05 3.04 3.20
District of Columbia................... 68,636 41,141 5,937 (19,286) 12,465 0.57 0.35 0.05 0.00 0.12
Florida................................ 1,806,432 1,621,614 1,505,570 1,443,603 1,691,814 1.53 1.47 1.45 1.47 1.84
Georgia................................ 1,453,118 1,281,507 1,094,999 965,870 962,324 2.03 1.95 1.79 1.68 1.81
Hawaii................................. 213,496 232,859 310,155 362,123 420,991 2.07 2.26 3.01 3.57 4.39
Idaho.................................. 243,090 245,096 247,823 240,141 243,573 2.88 3.14 3.49 3.67 4.09
Illinois............................... 1,629,210 1,247,066 851,918 847,622 1,172,283 1.22 0.99 0.71 0.74 1.08
Indiana................................ 1,228,070 1,132,343 1,024,658 941,632 899,139 2.16 2.11 2.05 1.99 2.02
Iowa................................... 725,149 708,450 655,066 615,474 594,626 3.10 3.23 3.20 3.16 3.27
Kansas................................. 704,008 735,717 658,053 605,827 571,904 2.77 3.20 3.03 2.89 2.91
Kentucky............................... 470,826 425,682 402,311 364,287 357,940 1.61 1.55 1.57 1.49 1.58
Louisiana.............................. 1,003,378 868,819 689,382 600,917 559,975 3.15 2.92 2.47 2.22 2.15
Maine.................................. 95,289 74,621 51,403 35,108 77,553 1.06 0.87 0.62 0.44 1.01
Maryland............................... 605,415 408,994 219,071 145,839 224,970 1.36 0.96 0.54 0.37 0.59
Massachusetts.......................... 527,273 184,933 (115,987) (379,918) (234,742) 0.70 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00
Michigan............................... 1,497,688 866,906 364,530 (72,492) (166,509) 1.45 0.90 0.42 0.00 0.00
Minnesota.............................. 459,621 369,776 257,584 224,091 309,473 0.94 0.80 0.59 0.54 0.80

[[Page 855]]

Mississippi............................ 551,318 490,392 410,259 345,352 348,593 3.19 2.98 2.74 2.48 2.69
Missouri............................... 196,933 118,466 (7,749) 3,101 199,473 0.40 0.26 0.00 0.001 0.30
Montana................................ 122,242 110,910 104,415 96,370 91,119 2.08 1.95 1.91 1.87 1.91
Nebraska............................... 194,283 188,365 171,938 160,713 146,184 1.45 1.51 1.49 1.46 1.42
Nevada................................. 297,866 289,804 238,398 233,667 295,919 1.69 1.70 1.68 1.79 2.46
New Hampshire.......................... 250,884 211,580 164,455 129,582 127,995 2.25 2.06 1.71 1.38 1.46
New Jersey............................. 1,987,790 1,947,033 1,965,236 2,439,970 2,564,278 2.06 2.12 2.23 2.86 3.16
New Mexico............................. 354,874 317,264 271,194 238,999 220,932 3.25 3.13 2.91 2.77 2.73
New York............................... 248,978 190,467 129,409 213,914 1,191,450 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.12 0.69
North Carolina......................... 1,531,117 1,555,329 1,514,674 1,387,170 1,373,719 2.27 2.49 2.60 2.52 2.70
North Dakota........................... 57,415 58,641 56,267 50,306 50,914 1.41 1.55 1.59 1.51 1.64
Ohio................................... 1,600,533 1,166,837 845,054 602,464 647,410 1.46 1.13 0.88 0.65 0.74
Oklahoma............................... 521,683 474,866 437,800 418,907 426,398 2.32 2.21 2.13 2.10 2.24
Oregon................................. 905,985 994,533 1,096,695 1,054,524 1,043,810 3.21 3.86 4.63 4.71 4.98
Pennsylvania........................... 1,914,777 1,518,999 1,105,425 807,828 1,155,988 1.78 1.48 1.12 0.84 1.26
Puerto Rico............................ 634,291 674,663 730,873 749,255 750,020 6.71 7.54 8.39 9.05 9.64
Rhode Island........................... 110,086 119,262 119,294 104,498 143,617 1.33 1.51 1.56 1.41 2.03
South Carolina......................... 556,650 502,237 467,494 433,442 455,097 1.84 1.79 1.77 1.73 1.92
South Dakota........................... 51,622 51,208 49,773 50,416 49,701 1.09 1.16 1.23 1.34 1.45
Tennessee.............................. 822,821 747,477 672,261 603,130 612,653 1.66 1.62 1.58 1.50 1.67
Texas.................................. 584,866 480,322 445,633 586,472 942,734 0.34 0.30 0.30 0.41 0.69
Utah................................... 468,030 411,411 366,524 342,146 327,893 2.93 2.86 2.82 2.83 2.96
Vermont................................ 206,720 195,418 183,025 180,730 192,675 4.51 4.51 4.37 4.49 5.05
Virginia............................... 788,787 658,588 553,441 506,641 591,166 1.27 1.13 1.01 0.97 1.19
Virgin Islands......................... 40,064 40,843 51,575 47,416 43,241 6.86 6.67 6.60 7.32 7.31
Washington............................. 1,417,701 1,565,417 1,743,146 1,766,006 1,707,604 2.93 3.45 4.05 4.18 4.40
West Virginia.......................... 164,036 161,671 154,512 140,517 157,124 1.44 1.47 1.49 1.38 1.62
Wisconsin.............................. 1,503,641 1,400,119 1,241,918 1,194,553 1,171,822 3.06 3.03 2.87 2.90 3.07
Wyoming................................ 142,310 136,755 127,332 109,826 98,952 4.22 4.15 4.08 3.71 3.48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................ 35,403,296 31,343,551 28,187,816 27,111,772 31,494,605 1.40 1.32 1.25 1.25 1.49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference between detail and totals due to rounding 1995 data subject to revision. Ratio of reserves to wages not calculated for States with negative
balances.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor. Prepared by the National Foundation for U.C. & W.C., June 1997.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION BY STATE FOR CY96.4, 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue (12 TF Balance Total loans
State mos) (in (in Mos. in TF (in Loans/cov.
thousands) thousands) thousands) employee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................ 134,029 483,472 27.3 0 0.00
Alaska......................................... 109,089 194,188 19.8 0 0.00
Arizona........................................ 223,143 627,059 46.3 0 0.00
Arkansas....................................... 169,670 202,784 13.0 0 0.00
California..................................... 3,590,823 2,877,452 11.7 0 0.00
Colorado....................................... 187,897 510,956 32.5 0 0.00
Connecticut.................................... 592,538 277,861 7.4 0 0.00
Delaware....................................... 68,409 258,468 31.9 0 0.00
Dist. of Colum................................. 133,380 99,368 12.2 0 0.00
Florida........................................ 677,796 1,947,557 35.2 0 0.00
Georgia........................................ 382,294 1,634,073 67.0 0 0.00
Hawaii......................................... 179,540 211,267 13.3 0 0.00
Idaho.......................................... 105,900 266,228 32.1 0 0.00
Illinois....................................... 1,199,050 1,638,560 15.2 0 0.00
Indiana........................................ 238,343 1,273,086 58.0 0 0.00
Iowa........................................... 133,905 718,845 45.9 0 0.00
Kansas......................................... 42,487 651,074 52.6 0 0.00
Kentucky....................................... 234,997 501,304 25.7 0 0.00
Louisiana...................................... 204,469 1,131,052 94.7 0 0.00
Maine.......................................... 122,601 112,122 12.5 0 0.00
Maryland....................................... 421,722 690,786 22.9 0 0.00
Massachusetts.................................. 1,130,136 914,631 14.0 0 0.00
Michigan....................................... 1,233,803 1,830,928 21.8 0 0.00
Minnesota...................................... 386,523 513,033 16.4 0 0.00
Mississippi.................................... 99,520 553,222 50.0 0 0.00
Missouri....................................... 381,576 307,507 12.8 0 0.00
Montana........................................ 58,841 125,900 24.9 0 0.00
Nebraska....................................... 41,748 195,210 44.8 0 0.00
Nevada......................................... 177,064 348,278 28.6 0 0.00
New Hampshire.................................. 41,781 268,011 91.7 0 0.00
New Jersey..................................... 1,448,896 2,028,818 13.1 0 0.00
New Mexico..................................... 85,729 385,531 59.6 0 0.00
New York....................................... 2,211,440 470,400 2.8 0 0.00
North Carolina................................. 113,075 1,355,565 39.6 0 0.00
North Dakota................................... 24,364 50,072 19.1 0 0.00
Ohio........................................... 781,640 1,750,968 28.8 0 0.00
Oklahoma....................................... 128,728 563,895 64.3 0 0.00
Oregon......................................... 384,046 941,419 28.9 0 0.00
Pennsylvania................................... 1,612,406 2,031,947 14.9 0 0.00
Puerto Rico.................................... 149,262 595,703 31.8 0 0.00
Rhode Island................................... 184,004 116,240 7.4 0 0.00
South Carolina................................. 208,829 603,410 36.2 0 0.00
South Dakota................................... 12,291 49,542 39.9 0 0.00
Tennessee...................................... 284,220 826,526 30.8 0 0.00
Texas.......................................... 1,014,460 642,233 7.7 0 0.00
Utah........................................... 96,262 523,880 89.2 0 0.00
Vermont........................................ 48,595 218,259 49.5 0 0.00
Virginia....................................... 260,890 897,198 55.4 0 0.00
Virgin Islands................................. 9,345 42,069 51.5 0 0.00
Washington..................................... 644,606 1,332,508 19.7 0 0.00
West Virginia.................................. 130,182 157,345 12.8 0 0.00
Wisconsin...................................... 445,248 1,556,922 37.2 0 0.00
Wyoming........................................ 28,401 147,087 54.0 0 0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 856]]

FINANCIAL INFORMATION BY STATE FOR CYQ, 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenues, TF as
last 12 TF balance percent of
State months (in (in total wages
thousands) thousands) \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................... $140,978 $451,425 1.21
Alaska........................... 131,645 202,416 3.46
Arizona.......................... 224,651 741,050 1.70
Arkansas......................... 183,101 204,319 1.03
California....................... 3,367,845 3,737,815 1.05
Colorado......................... 198,748 574,413 1.22
Connecticut...................... 637,125 532,692 1.06
Delaware......................... 75,692 279,173 2.86
District of Col.................. 132,481 135,627 0.94
Florida.......................... 685,668 2,090,222 1.55
Georgia.......................... 350,964 1,797,102 2.13
Hawaii........................... 186,510 216,658 2.04
Idaho............................ 99,412 280,382 3.00
Illinois......................... 1,226,328 1,742,968 1.16
Indiana.......................... 268,016 1,362,463 2.15
Iowa............................. 144,156 727,327 2.79
Kansas........................... 46,633 606,735 2.16
Kentucky......................... 269,075 571,366 1.71
Louisiana........................ 213,963 1,275,668 3.55
Maine............................ 118,089 136,019 1.35
Maryland......................... 349,967 720,552 1.42
Massachusetts.................... 1,222,144 1,446,164 1.64
Michigan......................... 1,184,719 2,222,714 1.93
Minnesota........................ 398,707 564,628 0.98
Mississippi...................... 166,992 563,901 2.95
Missouri......................... 381,802 417,706 0.75
Montana.......................... 65,306 135,604 2.11
Nebraska......................... 57,932 205,727 1.33
Nevada........................... 224,837 387,888 1.79
New Hampshire.................... 26,426 278,296 2.16
New Jersey....................... 1,459,837 2,384,916 2.21
New Mexico....................... 99,244 431,159 3.61
New York......................... 2,402,806 990,176 0.43
North Carolina................... 253,942 1,301,184 1.67
North Dakota..................... 26,246 38,057 0.83
Ohio............................. 719,622 1,874,943 1.53
Oklahoma......................... 107,585 608,942 2.36
Oregon........................... 462,961 1,068,843 3.13
Pennsylvania..................... 1,587,542 2,253,703 1.87
Puerto Rico...................... 203,816 586,659 5.30
Rhode Island..................... 248,423 160,044 1.78
South Carolina................... 219,733 687,060 2.02
South Dakota..................... 14,186 48,939 0.91
Tennessee........................ 296,749 847,842 1.52
Texas............................ 1,014,596 706,577 0.35
Utah............................. 97,876 572,849 2.97
Vermont.......................... 50,047 233,537 4.59
Virgin Islands................... 7,693 45,434 6.82
Virginia......................... 222,448 979,376 1.35
Washington....................... 810,440 1,447,195 2.42
West Virginia.................... 139,030 165,917 1.37
Wisconsin........................ 475,595 1,632,214 2.95
Wyoming.......................... 31,217 158,573 4.26
--------------------------------------
United States.................... 23,731,544 43,833,157 1.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on estimated wages for the most recent 12 months.

______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
S. 105. A bill to deauthorize certain portions of the project for
navigation, Bass Harbor, Maine, to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
S. 106. A bill to amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
to deauthorize the remainder of the project at East Boothbay Harbor,
Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
S. 107. A bill to deauthorize the project for navigation, Boothbay
Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
S. 108. A bill to modify, and to deauthorize certain portions of, the
project for navigation at Wells Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.

legislation to deauthorize certain portions of the project for
navigation in the state of maine

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for
their support in the last Congress for my legislation on behalf of the
towns of Tremont and East Boothbay, Maine, which passed the Senate in
the 105th Congress. S. 1531 sought to deauthorize certain portions of
the navigational project for Bass Harbor, and S. 1532 sought to
deauthorize the final portions of East Boothbay Harbor.
I also want to thank my colleagues for their support and Senate
passage of the reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1998, or WRDA, which not only included these two stand alone bills,
but also contained legislation that deauthorized the Federal Navigation
Project area within the limits of Boothbay Harbor's inner harbor. The
town's representatives had voted unanimously to request this
deauthorization of the FNP area.
Also, WRDA was amended on the floor to add language that would allow
for the dredging of Wells Harbor. After many contentious years, this
important federal project is set to go forward because a historic
Memorandum of Agreement was reached amongst the town of Wells, the Save
our Shores Wells coalition, the Wells Chamber of Commerce and the Maine
Audubon Society.
Bass Harbor has the greatest concentration of fishing boats on Mt.
Desert Island and all mooring spaces are currently full, with a long
waiting list to obtain future moorings. When the townspeople approached
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to obtain a permit for expansion, they
were told that no improvements could be made until the federal project
area boundary was moved to the proper location by legislative action. I
am happy to do this on their behalf. The Selectmen, Town Manager, and
Harbor Committee will not be working with the Corps and the State in
anticipation of having the harbor dredged, which last occurred in 1966,
so that they may make space available for more and larger boats.
The bill for East Boothbay Harbor deauthorize the remainder of the
federal navigational project at Boothbay Harbor. The current marina
owners purchased the former shipbuilding yard in East Boothbay in 1993
and have since turned it into a full service marina. In the process of
getting all the permits together for further economic development, the
marina discovered that parts of the harbor, while no longer used as
such, were still deemed a federal navigation project created back in
1913, when mine sweepers and other ships were being built there for
World War I. Because part of the federal navigation project is still
considered active, the Corps told the town that nothing could be done
in the water until the entire area was deauthorized. My bill takes care
of this final deauthorization, the rest of which was accomplished in
the last reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act, but
the coordinates were ultimately found to be inaccurate. This
legislation, with the assistance of the Corps, addresses that small
section still requiring deauthorization.
The Town of Boothbay Harbor, Maine has requested legislation be
enacted that will deauthorize the Federal Navigation Project area
within the limits of Boothbay Harbor's inner harbor. To this end, I am
introducing a bill, drafted with the assistance of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, and approved unanimously by the town's representatives.
I am also introducing legislation to address the dredging of Wells
Harbor, which will deepen and maintain the harbor and, at the same
time, protect an important federal wildlife refuge. The language, which
was also included in the Senate passed WRDA of 1998, gives the Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) the authority to proceed with the project.
The dredging of this federal project, contentious since 1988 because of
concerns from environmental groups, is now set to go forward because of
a historic Memorandum of Agreement that has been reached amongst the
community and town officials, and the Maine Audubon Society.
Interestingly, approximately 185,000 cubic yards of the sand to be
dredged will be used to nourish adjacent eroding beaches in the town of
Wells, so the project is a win-win situation for all concerned.
My stand alone bill, which will also once again be incorporated into
WRDA, will allow the Corps to conduct maintenance dredging in Wells
Harbor based on a design capacity for the harbor of 150 vessels, of
which approximately 10 percent are commercial fishing boats. A small
craft fleet of 150 is the original congressionally authorized design
capacity for the harbor, and was a crucial part of the Agreement.
In addition, all parties to the settlement have agreed to a
modification of the federal project, requiring Congressional action,
that would realign and redesignate the existing federal channel,
anchorage, and realign with the harbor settling basin, so as to
maximize the use of the natural channels in the harbor for navigation
and anchorage purposes. This will eliminate the impact of dredging on
the intertidal sand bar, which is considered to be the geologically
stabilizing force for the estuary. The language, drafted with Corps
assistance, will create a new settling basin in the outer harbor,
relocate the inner harbor channel to the east side of the harbor, and
redesignate portions of the current channel and settling basin as
anchorage.
The State of Maine issued water quality certification and coastal
zone

[[Page 857]]

management consistency in November of 1998, conditioned on the project
modifications in my legislation and that were passed by the Senate in
the WRDA of 1998.
Another critical component of the Agreement for all the parties is
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's request, also supported by the
Maine Audubon Society, that the Corps expand the area covered by the
bathymetric survey work that it will already be conducting as part of
the monitoring program for the harbor. The State and the parties have
agreed that the additional survey will provide important and useful
information about the erosional impacts of dredging in the harbor. I
have asked the Corps to make a good faith effort to honor this request.
Again, I congratulate the parties in the state for what I realize is
a fragile Agreement and wish to help bring this long standing matter to
the best conclusion possible both for the economy of the town of Wells
and the environment of the harbor, the Rachael Carson Wildlife Refuge
nearby and the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve, in which the
harbor lies.
I want to thank Senator Chafee and his Environment and Public Works
Committee for their work for successful Senate passage for these bills
in the last Congress. When passed again by the Senate and by the
House--and signed into law--the legislation will allow the Maine towns
involved to get on with much needed harbor economic development and
dredging.
I once again thank my colleagues and ask for their continued support
for passage of these bills, and I especially want to urge the House to
also move forward on WRDA reauthorization. One project in one district
in one state should not hold up the passage of this important
legislation as was the situation last year. This legislation will help
the economy of small towns in Maine--and many other locations around
the country--who desperately need harbor reauthorization or dredging.
______

By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself and Mr. Cleland):
S. 109. A bill to improve protection and management of the
Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area in the State of Georgia;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

CHATTAHOOCHEE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA BOUNDARIES LEGISLATION

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation which
would modify the boundaries of the Chattahoochee River National
Recreation Area to protect and preserve the endangered Chattahoochee
River and provide additional recreation opportunities for the citizens
of Georgia and our nation. This legislation authorizes the creation of
a greenway buffer between the river and private development to prevent
further pollution, provide flood and erosion control, and maintain
water quality for safe drinking water and for the fish and wildlife
dependent on the river system. In addition, this legislation promotes
private-public partnerships by authorizing $25 million in federal funds
for land acquisition for the recreation area. The $25 million will be
matched by private funds. The State of Georgia, private foundations,
corporate entities, private individuals, and others have already given
or pledged tens of millions of dollars to protect and preserve the
Chattahoochee River for future generations of Georgians to enjoy.
I would like to thank Senator Cleland for co-sponsoring this
important legislation and supporting my efforts to protect one of
Georgia's most vital natural resources. I believe it is crucial for
Congress to act quickly on this legislation in order to protect the
Chattahoochee River from any further development and environmental
damage. I look forward to working with Senator Cleland and my other
colleagues in the Senate on this important proposal and urge its speedy
consideration.
______

By Mr. SMITH of Oregon:
S. 110. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
provide medical assistance for breast and cervical cancer-related
treatment services to certain women screened and found to have breast
or cervical cancer under a federally-funded screening program; to the
Committee on Finance.

The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 1999

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, this evening, the President of
the United States will speak to the 106th Congress and the country in
his annual State of the Union address. As distracted as we
appropriately are by the Senate trial of the President, it is
nevertheless my hope that the Senate, by the conclusion of the 106th
Congress, will have enacted a strong bipartisan agenda reflecting
several core principles. First, we must ensure that our public
education system provides a high-quality, safe learning environment for
all children; second, we must help working families save for the
future; and third, we must support policies that increase access to
health care services and improve the quality of health care in this
nation.
With respect to the third principle, I rise today to introduce the
``Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 1999'', legislation that
my former colleague, Senator D'Amato from New York, proposed in the
105th Congress. Last year, this legislation received bipartisan support
in the Senate with 35 cosponsors, and 113 cosponsors in the House of
Representatives, demonstrating our commitment to improving the health
and lives of low-income women in the United States.
Mr. President, whether we stand here as fathers, husbands, brothers
or sons, mothers, daughters, sisters or grandchildren, we all know
someone, a family member or a friend, who has experienced the
devastating emotional and physical effects of breast or cervical
cancer. In my state of Oregon, more than 28,000 women are living with
breast cancer. In 1999, 500 women will die of breast cancer, and 200
women will die of cervical cancer. In an age of advancing technology
and improved mammography, this is unacceptable, and unbelievable. We
can and must do a better job for the women most at risk in this
country.
The legislation I am introducing today, gives us an opportunity to
expand upon an existing program that was enacted by Congress in 1990.
The Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act created a
breast and cervical cancer screening program for low-income and
uninsured women, and women of racial and ethnic minority populations
throughout the United States. In its eighth year at the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) more than 1.3 million screening tests for breast
and cervical cancer were provided. The CDC estimates that if such
services were available to all women at risk, 15-20 percent of all
deaths from breast cancer among women over 40 could have been
prevented.
Recognizing the success of this screening program, the only question
that remains is the availability of treatment. For a low-income or
uninsured woman, a diagnosis of breast or cervical cancer means that
the fight has just begun. Without adequate coverage for treatment,
women in this program are left to find their own coverage or rely upon
public hospitals or charity organizations. At Oregon Health Sciences
University (OHSU), physicians are working overtime to treat patients
and are facing limited budgets with which to provide services.
Mr. President, when a woman is diagnosed with cancer, there should be
no question of whether she will be treated; rather, the answer should
be ``Absolutely, as soon as possible,'' not ``How do you intend to pay
for the treatment?''
The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 1999 seeks to expand
upon the CDC screening program--with an emphasis on continuity of
care--by giving states the option of providing Medicaid coverage for
breast and cervical cancer treatment services to women who have been
diagnosed through the CDC Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening program.
With this legislation, a woman who is diagnosed through the CDC
screening program would no longer have to worry about where to find
treatment; the treatment

[[Page 858]]

would be available to her upon diagnosis, by familiar physicians, in
familiar surroundings.
Mr. President, this is not an issue of costs; it's an issue of
compassion. It is an opportunity to say ``yes, we're here to help'' to
the women in our lives who need our help the most. I believe that this
bill creates a new beginning not only for families of the women who are
and who will be fighting cancer in their lives, but for us as
legislators as we face a new millennium. I urge my colleagues to say
yes by joining me in this opportunity to set a new standard in the way
we meet the health care needs of women in this country.
______

By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Leahy, and
Mr. Jeffords):
S. 113. A bill to increase the criminal penalties for assaulting or
threatening Federal judges, their family members, and other public
servants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

the federal judiciary protection act of 1999

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues,
Senators Thurmond, Leahy, and Jeffords, to introduce the Federal
Judiciary Protection Act of 1999, a bill to provide greater protection
to Federal law enforcement officials and their families. Last year,
this legislation received strong bipartisan support and passed the
Senate by Unanimous Consent on November 9, 1997. I intend to work with
my colleagues and the members of the Judiciary Committee to ensure that
this bill becomes public law this year.
Former Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles once stated that ``Of
all the tasks of government, the most basic is to protect its citizens
against violence.'' I believe that the Federal Judiciary Protection Act
of 1999 gives us that very opportunity to strengthen those laws that
deter violence and provide protection to those whose careers are
dedicated to protecting our communities and our families.
Under current law, a person who assaults, attempts to assault, or who
threatens to kidnap or murder a member of the immediate family of a
United States official, a United States judge or a Federal law
enforcement official, is subject to a punishment of a fine or
imprisonment of up to five years, or both. This legislation seeks to
expand these penalties in instances of assault with a weapon and a
prior criminal history. In such cases, an individual could face up to
20 years in prison.
Importantly, this legislation would also strengthen the penalties for
individuals who communicate threats through the mail. Currently,
individuals who knowingly use the United States Postal Service to
deliver any communication containing any threat are subject to a fine
of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to five years. Under this
legislation, anyone who communicates a threat could face imprisonment
of up to ten years.
Emphasizing the need for this legislation, are the experiences of
Oregon's own Chief Judge Michael Hogan and his family. They were
subjected to frightening, threatening phone calls, letters and messages
from an individual who had been convicted of previous crimes in Judge
Hogan's courtroom. For months, he and his family lived with the fear
that these threats to the lives of his wife and children could become
reality, and, equally disturbing, that the individual could be back out
on the street again in a matter of a few months, or a few years.
Judge Hogan and his family are not alone. In April, 1997, the wife of
a Circuit Court judge in Florida was stalked by an individual who had
been convicted of similar offense in 1994 and 1995. In this instance,
the judge's wife was leaving a shopping mall one afternoon, and as she
left the parking lot, realized that she was being followed. In an
attempt to lose her pursuer, she took alternative routes, speeding
through residential streets. In a desperate attempt, she cut in front
of a semitrailer truck, risking a serious accident and possible loss of
life, to escape. Even after his third offense, stalking the wife of a
Circuit Court judge, her pursuer has been sentence to only six months
of probation and $150 in fines and the court costs.
Mr. President, these are two examples of vicious acts focused at our
Federal law enforcement officials and their families. As a member of
the legislative branch, I believe that it is our responsibility to
provide adequate protection to all Americans who serve to protect the
life and liberty of every citizen in this nation. I encourage my
colleagues to join us in sponsoring this important legislation.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Gordon Smith in
introducing the Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 1999. In the last
Congress, I was pleased to cosponsor nearly identical legislation
introduced by Senator Smith, which unanimously passed the Senate
Judiciary Committee and the Senate but was not acted upon by the House
of Representatives. I commend the Senator from Oregon for his continued
leadership in protecting our Federal judiciary.
Our bipartisan legislation would provide greater protection to
Federal judges, law enforcement officers and their families.
Specifically, our legislation would: increase the maximum prison term
for forcible assaults, resistance, opposition, intimidation or
interference with a Federal judge or law enforcement officer from 3
years imprisonment to 8 years; increase the maximum prison term for use
of a deadly weapon or infliction of bodily injury against a Federal
judge or law enforcement officer from 10 years imprisonment to 20
years; and increase the maximum prison term for threatening murder or
kidnaping of a member of the immediate family of a Federal judge or law
enforcement officer from 5 years imprisonment to 10 years. It has the
support of the Department of Justice, the United States Judicial
Conference, the United States Sentencing Commission and the United
States Marshal Service.
It is most troubling that the greatest democracy in the world needs
this legislation to protect the hard working men and women who serve in
our Federal judiciary and other law enforcement agencies. But,
unfortunately, we are seeing more violence and threats of violence
against officials of our Federal government.
Recently, for example, a courtroom in Urbana, Illinois was
firebombed, apparently by a disgruntled litigant. This follows the
horrible tragedy of the bombing of the federal office building in
Oklahoma City in 1995. In my home state during the summer of 1997, a
Vermont border patrol officer, John Pfeiffer, was seriously wounded by
Carl Drega, during a shootout with Vermont and New Hampshire law
enforcement officers in which Drega lost his life. Earlier that day;
Drega shot and killed two state troopers and a local judge in New
Hampshire. Apparently, Drega was bent on settling a grudge against the
judge who had ruled against him in a land dispute.
I had a chance to visit John Pfeiffer in the hospital and met his
wife and young daughter. Thankfully, Agent Pfeiffer has returned to
work along the Vermont border. As a federal law enforcement officer,
Agent Pfeiffer and his family will receive greater protection under our
bill.
There is, of course, no excuse or justification for someone taking
the law into their own hands and attacking or threatening a judge or
law enforcement officer. Still, the U.S. Marshal Service is concerned
with more and more threats of harm to our judges and law enforcement
officers.
The extreme rhetoric that some have used in the past to attack the
judiciary only feeds into this hysteria. For example, one of the
Republican leaders in the House of Representatives has been quoted as
saying: ``The judges need to be intimidated,'' and if they do not
behave, ``we're going to go after them in a big way.'' I know that this
official did not intend to encourage violence against any Federal
official, but this extreme rhetoric only serves to degrade Federal
judges in the eyes of the public.
Let none of us in the Congress contribute to the atmosphere of hate
and violence. Let us treat the judicial branch and those who serve
within it

[[Page 859]]

with the respect that is essential to preserving its public standing.
We have the greatest judicial system in the world, the envy of people
around the globe who are struggling for freedom. It is the independence
of our third, co-equal branch of government that gives it the ability
to act fairly and impartially. It is our judiciary that has for so long
protected our fundamental rights and freedoms and served as a necessary
check on overreaching by the other two branches, those more susceptible
to the gusts of the political winds of the moment.
We are fortunate to have dedicated women and men throughout the
Federal Judiciary and law enforcement in this country who do a
tremendous job under difficult circumstances. They are examples of the
hard-working public servants that make up the federal government, who
are too often maligned and unfairly disparaged. It is unfortunate that
it takes acts or threats of violence to put a human face on the Federal
Judiciary and other law enforcement officials, to remind everyone that
these are people with children and parents and cousins and friends.
They deserve our respect and our protection.
I urge my colleagues to support the Federal Judiciary Protection Act
of 1999 and look forward to its swift enactment into law.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 114. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to
revise and extend certain programs relating to the education of
individuals as health professionals, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

physical therapy and occupational therapy education act of 1999

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Physical and
Occupational Therapy Education Act of 1999. This legislation will
increase educational opportunities for physical therapy and
occupational therapy practitioners in order to meet the growing demand
for the valuable services they provide in our communities.
In its most recent report, the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) projected that the demand for services provided by
physical therapists will increase dramatically over the next decade.
According to the BLS statistics, the increase in demand for these
services will create a need for 81,000 additional therapists, an 80%
increase over 1994 figures.
The BLS also predicts an increased demand for occupational
therapists. According to the BLS, by the year 2005, the increase in
demand will create a need for 39,000 additional occupational
therapists, a 72% increase over 1994 figures.
Several factors contribute to the present need for federal support in
this area. The rapid aging of our nations' population, the demands of
the AIDs crisis, increasing emphasis on health promotion and disease
prevention, and the growth of home health care have exceeded our
ability to educate an adequate number of physical therapy and
occupational therapy practitioners. In addition, technological advances
are allowing injured and disabled individuals to survive conditions
that, in past years, would have proven fatal.
America's inability to educate an adequate number of physical
therapists has led to an increased reliance on foreign-educated, non-
immigrant temporary workers (H-1B visa holders). The U.S. Commission on
Immigration Reform has identified physical therapy and occupational
therapy as having the highest number of H-1B visa holders in the U.S.,
second only to computer specialists. While the INS does not categorize
occupational therapy as a separate profession when tracking H-1B visa
entrants, the National Board of Certification in Occupational Therapy
documents that the percentage of newly certified occupational
therapists who are foreign graduates has risen from 3% in 1985 to more
than 20% in 1995.
The legislation I introduce today would provide necessary assistance
to physical and occupational therapy programs throughout the country.
In awarding grants, preference would be given to applicants seeking to
educate and train practitioners at clinical sites in medically
underserved communities.
In addition to the shortage of practitioners, the current shortage of
physical therapy and occupational therapy faculty impedes the expansion
of established programs. The critical shortage of doctoral-prepared
occupational therapists and physical therapists has resulted in an
almost nonexistent pool of potential faculty. Presently, there are 117
faculty vacancies among 131 accredited physical therapy programs in the
U.S. Similiarily, during the 1995-1996 academic year there were 51
faculty vacancies among 85 accredited professional level occupational
therapy programs. The legislation I introduce today would assist in the
development of a pool of qualified faculty by giving preference to
applicants seeking to develop and expand post professional programs for
the advanced training of physical and occupational therapists.
The investment we make through passage of the Physical Therapy and
Occupational Therapy Education Act of 1999 will help reduce America's
dependence on foreign labor and create highly-skilled, high-wage
employment opportunities for American citizens. I look forward to
working with my colleagues in Congress to enact this important
legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 114

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 ``Physical Therapy and
Occupational Therapy Education Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. PHYSICAL THERAPY AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY.

Subpart 2 of part E of title VII of the Public Health
Service Act, as amended by the Health Professions Education
Partnerships Act of 1998, is amended by inserting after
section 769, the following:

``SEC. 769A. PHYSICAL THERAPY AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to, and
enter into contracts with, programs of physical therapy and
occupational therapy for the purpose of planning and
implementing projects to recruit and retain faculty and
students, develop curriculum, support the distribution of
physical therapy and occupational therapy practitioners in
underserved areas, or support the continuing development of
these professions.
``(b) Preference in Making Grants.--In making grants under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall give preference to
qualified applicants that seek to educate physical therapists
or occupational therapists in rural or urban medically
underserved communities, or to expand post-professional
programs for the advanced education of physical therapy or
occupational therapy practitioners.
``(c) Peer Review.--Each peer review group under section
798(a) that is reviewing proposals for grants or contracts
under subsection (a) shall include not fewer than 2 physical
therapists or occupational therapists.
``(d) Report to Congress.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall prepare a report
that--
``(A) summarizes the applications submitted to the
Secretary for grants or contracts under subsection (a);
``(B) specifies the identity of entities receiving the
grants or contracts; and
``(C) evaluates the effectiveness of the program based upon
the objectives established by the entities receiving the
grants or contracts.
``(2) Date certain for submission.--Not later than February
1, 2001, the Secretary shall submit the report prepared under
paragraph (1) to the Committee on Commerce and the Committee
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there is authorized to be
appropriated $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000
through 2003.''.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 115. A bill to require that health plans provide coverage for a
minimum hospital stay for mastectomies and lymph node dissection for
the treatment of breast cancer and coverage for secondary
consultations; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.

[[Page 860]]

Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1999

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the Senator from
California, Mrs. Feinstein, I rise today to introduce the Women's
Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1999. We supported this bill in the
105th Congress when it was championed by my friend, the Senator from
New York, Mr. D'Amato, and we are reaffirming our support for this
important issue by reintroducing this bill today. Last year we did make
some progress on this bill as one piece--requiring insurance companies
to cover reconstructive surgery was included in the final Omnibus
spending bill enacted into law last October.
This bill is about doing what's best for women facing the crisis of a
cancer diagnosis and a potential mastectomy. Because right now some
women are being denied the best health care available. That is simply
not acceptable in a country of such vast medical resources.
This year, millions of Americans will face the possibility of a
cancer diagnosis, and 180,000 women will be diagnosed with breast
cancer. Our bill provides women with breast cancer and all Americans
facing a cancer diagnosis with some basic protections.
First, it ensures that doctors are not pressured by health plans to
release mastectomy patients before it is medically appropriate.
Currently, some insurers have guidelines recommending that mastectomies
be performed on an outpatient basis. A mastectomy is a very complicated
surgical procedure and complications can arise as a result. Sending a
woman home immediately after the surgery is not always the right thing
to do. They may not have the information they need nor, more
importantly, the care. We want to make sure--and this bill will--that
the decisions are made in the context of the medical well being of the
patient as opposed to being made by an insurance company bureaucrat.
This decision must be returned to physicians and their patients. The
physical scars left by a mastectomy can be complicated and difficult to
care for, and often require supervision. Women prematurely released may
not have the information they need, and some dangerous complications
can arise hours after the operation. And all of this is happening in
context of the intense emotional trauma that comes with losing part or
all of a breast.
Finally, all Americans who face the possibility of a cancer diagnosis
must be able to make informed decisions about appropriate medical care.
To do that, they need access to all the information available. Our bill
requires insurance companies to pay full coverage for secondary
consultations with a specialist whenever any cancer has been diagnosed
or a treatment recommended. This will reduce senseless deaths resulting
from false diagnoses and empower individuals to seek the most
appropriate available treatment.
Women with breast cancer and all Americans facing a cancer diagnosis
cannot wait any longer. I would urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this bill in order to provide the protections granted under
this bill now.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 116. A bill to establish a training voucher system, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

working american training voucher act

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
will address a serious need of America's workers: the need to receive
training that will prepare individuals for the workplace of the 21st
Century. My legislation, entitled the ``Working American Training
Voucher Act,'' would provide $1,000 training vouchers to 1 million
working men and women who typically have little or no access to
employer-provided training.
Mr. President, many Federal programs focus on the needs of those
whose challenges and difficulties are most easily recognized and
tangible. When we see a hungry child, an unemployed adult, or an
impoverished senior citizen, we justifiably want to reach out and do
what we can to help. Indeed, I am proud to be an active voice for those
whose challenges and pains we can sometimes only imagine. However, it
is oftentimes difficult to recognize the needs of those whose
challenges are less tangible, whose concerns are less evident, or whose
sense of insecurity about the future is known only by the individual
and their family.
It is this difficulty that confronts many American workers today. In
the face of increasing global competition, many workers wonder if the
job they have today will be there for them tomorrow. They are concerned
that the advent of new technologies is making their skills and talents
less useful for their current employers which, in turn, makes them feel
more vulnerable and expendable. And they wonder if the skills they
possess today are even marketable if they are ``down-sized'' or
otherwise put out of work.
Unfortunately, these types of concerns and anxieties oftentimes do
not show on the surface, so it can be difficult for others to recognize
or address them. It is too easy for many to assume that because a man
or woman is already holding down a job, all is well and his or her
future is secure. After all, how bad can it be if you're punching a
time clock and getting a paycheck? Unfortunately, such a view is not
only shortsighted, it is also misguided and could prove disastrous.
We should not wait until a worker has been laid-off from their job,
or a company shuts its doors and shutters its windows, to take steps to
help the American worker. Rather, we should take steps to ensure that
our nation's workforce is confident of their future and feels prepared
to address the changes that tomorrow will bring. Not only does this
help the individual, but I think we would all agree that the best way
to reduce the impact and cost of unemployment is to take steps to keep
those who are already employed on-the-job!
Admittedly, many policies and decisions play an integral role in
creating a vibrant job market. The tax burden we place on businesses,
the trade agreements we sign with foreign governments, and the
regulatory load we place on employers all have a significant impact on
our economy's ability to produce and sustain good jobs. However, for
the individual, many of these policies seem too ``macro'' to have an
impact on their own employment prospects. In fact, an individual may
not even recognize the direct impact these broader policies have on
their job from day to day.
There is, however, one issue that truly strikes at the heart of how
an individual feels about the future: the degree to which he or she
knows that their skills match the needs of their current employer or
other prospective employers in the marketplace. Without this knowledge,
it does not matter to an individual if the unemployment rate is as low
as economists consider the ``natural rate of unemployment'' or if the
newspapers tell him or her that the economy couldn't be better. The
simple fact is that unless an individual personally feels that their
skills are up-to-date and marketable, there will never be a complete
sense of security on the job from one day to the next.
And that's what the legislation I am introducing today is all about.
The ``Working American Training Voucher Act'' addresses the needs of
the average American worker--the individual who has a job today, but
doesn't know if he or she has the skills needed for the jobs of
tomorrow. The person who's collecting a paycheck now, but is concerned
that the rapidly changing work environment may put an end to that soon.
Mr. President, we all know new technologies and new products are
entering the workplace at an unprecedented rate and the changes these
technologies bring are substantial. Few professions and few jobs have
gone untouched by these changes--and even fewer will be immune from
change in the future. Indeed, just as computers have changed the face
of manufacturing, they have also changed the world of art and design.
Even labor intensive tasks at assembly shops have taken on a high-tech
flair thanks to new technologies.
For an individual who understands these technologies or receives
training

[[Page 861]]

in their use, these changes present exciting new opportunities that
improve performance and ultimately give one a sense of assurance that
their skills are in demand. But for those who do not understand these
technologies or do not receive training in their use, these
technologies are nothing more than a threat and a cause for anxiety.
Regrettably, even as the demand for training at all levels in the
workplace continues to grow because of these changing technologies, the
United States has historically lagged far behind our global competitors
in training workers. In fact, a study by the Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment concluded: ``When measured by international
standards, most American workers are not well trained.''
While some U.S. companies devote a substantial amount of money to
training, many of our global competitors spend considerably more. A
study by the American Society for Training and Development highlighted
this point when it found that U.S. companies spend--in the aggregate--
approximately 1.4 percent of their payroll on training, while a number
of our competitor nations actually require companies to spend 2 to 4
percent! While I would not espouse a mandatory training budget for any
business, I believe we can and should seek to improve the availability
of training for our nation's workers--and especially for those who need
it most but are least likely to receive it. And that's precisely who
the ``Working American Training Voucher'' is designed to reach.
Mr. President, the ``Working American Training Voucher'' would
provide access to critically needed training for workers at businesses
with 200 or fewer employees. Why is it targeted to workers in small
businesses? Quite simply, because these are the individuals who are the
least likely to receive--or be offered--employer-provided training. The
same report by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
summarized the plight of employees at small businesses quite
succinctly: ``Many (employees) in smaller firms receive no formal
training.''
A 1997 report--completed by Professor Craig Olson at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison and presented to the Senate Manufacturing Task
Force during the 105th Congress--looked at the difference between the
likelihood an individual would receive training and the level of
educational achievement he or she attained, or the field he or she
chose to enter. Dr. Olson's study found that individuals with a
bachelor's or master's degree had a 50 percent chance of receiving
training in the past year, while individuals with a high school diploma
had only a 17 percent chance. Those who dropped out of high school
fared even worse: their odds of receiving training were only 5 percent.
When viewed by occupation, individuals who worked in production- or
service-related jobs had only a 16 percent and 18 percent chance of
receiving training respectively, while those in management had a 50
percent chance. When considering that only one in four American workers
received training in the past 12 months, these odds don't bode well for
many employees at small businesses whose educational attainment and
occupations fall in the categories that are the least likely to receive
training.
One might understandably ask: Why is it that small businesses often
provide so little training? The answer: cost. Small businesses are
quite often unable to afford the cost of sending an employee to a
training program. When your business is just trying to make ends meet,
it's impossible to send an employee to a training class that costs the
business both money and time away from work.
Mr. President, the ``Working American Training Voucher'' is designed
to address this problem in a straightforward and efficient way. These
vouchers--valued at up to $1,000 each--would be made available to
employees at small businesses through the existing job training system
that is already in place as a result of the Job Training Partnership
Act (JTPA). As my colleagues in the Senate know, state and local
governments--joined by the private sector--have primary responsibility
for the development, management, and administration of job training
programs in the JTPA, so no new distribution network would be necessary
to conduct this voucher program.
The only major requirement for receiving a voucher would be that the
employee and employer must agree on the specific training that will be
purchased with the voucher. This will ensure that the training will be
targeted specifically to the needs of the individual and the business--
money would not be spent on generic training programs that teach skills
that are of little, if any, use in a particular field or job.
Furthermore, such an agreement will ensure that workers are actively
engaged in pursuing training that will help their careers, even as
employers will be urging employees to undertake training that will help
the business.
Last year, JTPA programs were re-crafted and consolidated as part of
the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998--a law that greatly improved
the delivery of federal job training monies. Specifically, up until the
passage of the WIA, there was virtually no federal money for workers
that are already employed. But with WIA's enactment, we are beginning
to place some much needed attention on the needs of incumbent workers,
and the ``Working American Training Voucher Act'' will vastly expand
access to training for those who need it most.
Mr. President, I believe that as we prepare our workforce for the
next century, we should be encouraging workers to develop new skills
that will improve their longevity in their current jobs even as they
gain confidence that their skills will be needed in the future. Not
only will these new skills increase the confidence and performance of
the individual worker, but they will also improve the productivity of
the business who employs them. And we all know that if we improve a
business' productivity and output, that business is more likely to
survive and thrive--which means that this voucher may ultimately assist
in preserving businesses and jobs in the long run.
Furthermore, better skills and training will ensure that individuals
are able to rapidly transition to new jobs in the unfortunate event
their current job is lost for reasons beyond their control. Regardless
of how favorable the tax code is made or how many burdensome
regulations we remove, we will never be able to guarantee an individual
that his or her job will be around forever. But we can provide a worker
with access to training that will keep his or her skills up-to-date and
marketable no matter what the future holds.
Mr. President, the ``Working American Training Voucher'' would be a
tangible, concrete, and definable program that would address a core
issue facing American workers. It will ensure that those who typically
have the least access to training will be able to acquire the skills
needed for their current jobs, while improving their jobs in the
future. It is targeted to those who are most in need of assistance, and
will ensure that we no longer wait until an individual is out of work
to provide help.
The Federal government often promises the American people many
things, but we can never offer peace of mind to a worker who doesn't
know if his or her skills are adequate to keep them employed. Let's
take a step in the right direction and at least ensure that those who
have a job will not lose it due to a lack of access to training and new
skills. Let's pass the ``Working American Training Voucher Act.''
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Women's
Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1999 with Senator Olympia Snowe.
This bill has four provisions:
For breast cancer--
1. It requires insurance plans to cover hospital stays as determined
by the attending physician, in consultation with the patient, to be
medically appropriate. Our bill does not prescribe a fixed number of
days or set a minimum. It leaves the length of hospital stay up to the
treating physician.
2. It requires insurance plans to provide notice to plan subscribers
of these requirements.
For all cancers--
3. It prohibits insurance plans from linking financial or other
incentives to a physician's provisions of care.

[[Page 862]]

4. It requires plans to cover second opinions by specialists to
confirm or refute a diagnosis. If the attending physician certifies
that there is no appropriate specialist practicing under the insurance
plan, the plan must ensure that coverage is provided outside the plan
for a second opinion by a qualified specialist selected by the
attending physician at no additional cost to the patient beyond that
which the patient would have paid if the specialist were participating
in the plan.

Need for Legislation

The movement from inpatient to outpatient mastectomies and reduced
hospital stays for mastectomies in recent years has been documented. A
June 3, 1998 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute
found that from 1986 to 1995 ``the proportion of mastectomies performed
on an outpatient basis increased from virtually 0% to 10.8%,'' said
these researchers. This report also says that the data ``clearly
suggested a shorter average length of stay and a higher likelihood of a
short stay for women covered by HMOs'' and that ``while short stays
appear to be more prevalent among HMO enrollees, they are not limited
exclusively to women with HMO coverage.''
Another study, by the medical research firm HCIA of Baltimore,
Maryland, found that in 1995, 7.6 percent of the 110,000 breast
removals in the country were done on an outpatient basis, up from 1.6
percent in 1991.
Another study found that the average length of stay for women who
have had a mastectomy is 4.34 days nationally, but in California, it is
2.98 days, the shortest in the country. (New York has the longest
mastectomy length of stay at 5.78 days.) This study, published in the
winter 1997-1998 issue of Inquiry, says:

California had the highest proportion of mastectomy
patients discharged after only one day or within two days . .
. Nearly 12% of mastectomy patients in California were
discharged with a length of stay equal to one day; the next
highest proportion was 4.8% in Massachusetts; the percentages
in the other three states ranged from 1.1% to 2.2%.

A July 7, 1997 study by the Connecticut Office of Health Care Access
found the average hospital length of stay for breast cancer patients
undergoing mastectomies decreased from three days in 1991 and 1993 to
two days in 1994 and 1995. This study said, ``The percentage of
mastectomy patients discharged after one-day stays grew about 700
percent from 1991 to 1996.''
The Wall Street Journal on November 6, 1996, reported that ``some
health maintenance organizations are creating an uproar by ordering
that mastectomies be performed on an outpatient basis. At a growing
number of HMOs, surgeons must document `medical necessity' to justify
even a one-night hospital admission.''
And so the studies confirm that (1) hospital lengths of stay for
mastectomies are decreasing and (2) more mastectomies are being done on
an outpatient basis.

Incidence of Breast Cancer

In 1998, over 180,000 people (one in every 8 American women) were
diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and 44,000 women died from breast
cancer. Only lung cancer causes more cancer deaths in American women.
There are 2.6 million American women living with breast cancer today.
In my state, in 1998, approximately 17,600 women were diagnosed with
breast cancer and 4,300 died, according to the American Cancer Society.
Officials at the Northern California Cancer Center say that breast
cancer incidence rates in Los Angeles and San Francisco are
significantly higher than national rates.

the stress of mastectomy; the need for care

After a mastectomy, patients must cope with pain from the surgery,
with drainage tubes and with psychological loss--the trauma of an
amputation. These patients need medical care from trained
professionals, medical care that they cannot provide themselves at
home. A woman fighting for her life and her dignity should not also be
saddled with a battle with her health insurance plan.
Dr. Christine Miaskowski at the University of California, San
Francisco, estimates that about 20 percent of women who have breast
cancer surgery have chronic pain of long duration. A University of
California, San Diego, study suggests that the rate may be double that,
reports the May 20, 1998 Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Patients who have mastectomies in outpatient settings have higher
rates of rehospitalization than women with a one-day hospital stay,
according to the study reported in the Journal of the National Cancer
Institute.
As the National Breast Cancer Coalition wrote me on March 12, 1998:
``The NBCC applauds this effort and believes this compromise will put
an end to the dangerous health insurance practices that allow cost and
not medical evidence to determine when a woman leaves a hospital after
cancer surgery.''

some accomplishments last year

In the last Congress, Senators D'Amato, Snowe and I introduced a
similar bill, S. 249, which also included a requirement that plans
cover breast reconstruction following a mastectomy. Fortunately,
Congress passed and the President signed that part of our bill, into
law, the omnibus appropriations bill for FY 1999, now P.L. 105-277.
The mastectomy hospital length-of-stay and the other provisions did
not become law, despite many efforts:
At our request, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on S. 249
on November 5, 1997.
We attempted to get this considered by the Senate, three times in
1998:
On March 16, we filed it as an amendment to H.R. 2646, the Parent and
Student Savings Account PLUS Act.
On May 6, we filed it as an amendment to H.R. 2676, the IRS
restructuring bill.
On May 12, we tried to bring the bill to a vote in the Senate, but
were blocked.
In addition, Senator D'Amato offered it as an amendment in the
Finance Committee twice.

two california cases

Two California women have shared their real-life experiences with me:
Nancy Couchot, age 60, of Newark, California, wrote me that she had a
modified radical mastectomy on November 4, 1996, at 11:30 a.m. and was
released by 4:30 p.m. She could not walk and the hospital staff did not
help her ``even walk to the bathroom.'' She says, ``Any woman, under
these circumstances, should be able to opt for an overnight stay to
receive professional help and strong pain relief.''
Victoria Berck, of Los Angeles, wrote that she had a mastectomy and
lymph node removal at 7:30 a.m. on November 13, 1996, and was released
from the hospital 7 hours later, at 2:30 p.m. Ms. Berck was given
instructions on how to empty two drains attached to her body and sent
home. She concludes, ``No civilized country in the world has mastectomy
as an outpatient procedure.''
These are but two examples of what I believe is happening around the
county--insurance plans interfering with professional medical judgment
and arbitrarily reducing care without a medical basis.
Premature discharges for mastectomy, with insurance plans strong-
arming physicians to send women home, are one glaring example of the
rising tide of abuses faced by patients and physicians who have to
``battle'' with their HMOs to get coverage of the care that physicians
believe is medically necessary.

No Financial Incentives

For all cancers, our bill also prohibits insurance plans from
including financial or other incentives to influence the care a doctor
provides, similar to a law passed by the California legislature last
year. Many physicians have complained that insurance plans include
financial bonuses or other incentives for cutting patient visits or for
not referring patients to specialists. Our bill bans financial
incentives linked to how a doctor provides care. Our intent is to
restore medical decision-making to health care.
For example, a California physician wrote me, ``Financial incentives
under managed care plans often remove access to pediatric specialty
care.'' A June 1995 report in the Journal of the National Cancer
Institute cited the suit filed by the husband of a 34-year-

[[Page 863]]

old California woman who died from colon cancer, claiming that HMO
incentives encouraged her physicians not to order additional tests that
could have saved her life.

Second Opinions

Finally, our bill requires plans to cover second opinions by
specialists for all cancers when a patient requests them. And if the
attending physician certifies that there is no appropriate specialist
practicing under the plan, the plan must cover a second opinion outside
the plan by a qualified specialist selected by the attending physician,
at no additional cost to the patient beyond that which the patient
would have paid if the specialists were participating in the plan.
The alarm of learning one has cancer is profound. It affects the
individual and the whole family deeply. People need the best medical
judgment they can get, to make some of the most important decisions of
their lives. I believe plans should cover a second opinion, so that
patients can get the best care possible and can try to find some peace
of mind that they are getting competent, complete medical advice.

Conclusion

This bill would restore professional medical decision making to
medical doctors, those whom we trust to take care of us. It should not
take an act of Congress to guarantee good health care, but
unfortunately that is where we are today. As the National Breast Cancer
Coalition wrote, ``. . . until guaranteed access to quality health care
coverage and service is available for all women and their families,
there are some very serious patient concerns that must be met. Without
meaningful health care reform, market forces propel the changes in the
health care system and women are at risk of being forced to pay the
price by having inappropriate limits placed on their access to quality
health care.''
This is an important protection for millions of Americans who face
the fear, the reality and the costs of cancer every day. Seven states
have a law allowing a physician to determine the length of stay
following a mastectomy. Seven states have a required 48-hour minimum
stay requirement.
It is long past time for this Congress to send a strong message to
insurance companies. Medical decisions must be made by medical
professionals, not anonymous insurance clerks.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 117. A bill to permit individuals to continue health plan coverage
of services while participating in approved clinical studies; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 118. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide,
with respect to research on breast cancer, for the increased
involvement of advocates in decision making at the National Cancer
Institute; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

BREAST CANCER LEGISLATION

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills which
build on progress made in the 105th Congress in the difficult and
challenging fight against breast cancer.
Our challenge was summed up by one breast cancer advocate when she
stated, simply and eloquently, ``We must make our voices heard, because
it is our lives.'' Indeed, breast cancer continues to claim the lives
of our mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives. With about 1 in 8 women
at risk for developing breast cancer, there is scarcely a family in
America unaffected by the disease.
By the end of this year alone, over 178,000 women will have been
diagnosed with breast cancer. Over 43,500 will have died. And with each
life stolen, our nation is weakened immeasurably.
We took an important step forward in the last Congress to combat this
deadly foe. In the Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Act,
Congress included language based on a bill I introduced with the
Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, to create a ``one-stop
shopping information service'' for individuals with life-threatening
diseases looking to obtain information about privately and publicly
funded clinical trials. This service provides information describing
the purpose of the trial, eligibility criteria and the location. It
gives individuals, their families and physicians an 800 number to call
to obtain the latest information about these trials--trials that could
save a loved ones life and trials that could help put us a step closer
to our ultimate goal--finding a cure.
Much remains to be done before we conquer breast cancer, so today I
am reintroducing a bill, the Improved Patient Access to Clinical
Studies Act of 1999, to prohibit insurance companies from denying
coverage for services provided to individuals participating in clinical
trials, if those services would otherwise be covered by the plan. This
bill would also prevent health plans from discriminating against
enrollees who choose to participate in clinical trials.
This bill has a two-fold purpose. First, it will ensure that many
patients who could benefit from these potentially life-saving
investigational treatments but currently do not have access to them
because their insurance will not cover the associated costs. Second,
without reimbursement for these services, our researchers' ability to
conduct important research is impeded as it reduces the number of
patients who seek to participate in clinical trials.
The second bill will give breast cancer advocates a voice in the
National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) research decision-making. The
Consumer Involvement in Breast Cancer Research Act urges NIH to follow
the Department of Defense's lead and include lay breast cancer
advocates in breast cancer research decision-making.
The involvement of these breast cancer advocates at DOD has helped
foster new and innovative breast cancer research funding designs and
research projects. While maintaining the highest level of quality
assurance through peer review, breast cancer advocates have helped to
ensure that all breast cancer research reflects the experiences and
wisdom of the individuals who have lived with the disease, as well as
the scientific community.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting these two bills
which will help those suffering from breast cancer and their families
as well as our researchers who are seeking the cure for this
devastating disease.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 119. A bill to establish a Northern Border States-Canada Trade
Council, and for other purposes, to the Committee on Finance.

the northern border states council act

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
would establish a Northern Border States Council on United States-
Canada trade.
The purpose of this Council is to oversee cross-border trade with our
Nation's largest trading partner--an action that I believe is long
overdue. The Council will serve as an early warning system to alert
State and Federal trade officials to problems in cross-border traffic
and trade. The Council will enable the United States to more
effectively administer trade policy with Canada by applying the wealth
of insight, knowledge and expertise of people who reside not only in my
State of Maine, but also in the other eleven northern border States as
well, on this critical policy issue.
Within the U.S. Government we already have the Department of Commerce
and a U.S. Trade Representative, both Federal entities, responsible for
our larger, national U.S. trade interests. But the facts is that too
often such entities fail to give full consideration to the interests of
the 12 northern States that share a border with Canada, the longest
demilitarized border between two nations anywhere in the world. The
Northern Border States Council will provide State trade officials with
a mechanism to share information about cross-border traffic and trade.
The Council will then advise the Congress, the President, the U.S.
Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, and other Federal and
State trade officials on United States-Canada trade policies, and
problems.

[[Page 864]]

Canada is our largest and most important trading partner. Canada is
by far the top purchaser of U.S. export goods and services, as it is
the largest source of U.S. imports. In 1997, for instance, Canada
imported over $151.7 million worth of U.S. goods. With an economy one-
tenth the size of our own, Canada's economic health depends on
maintaining close trade ties with the United States. While Canada
accounts for about one-fifth of U.S. exports and imports, the United
States is the source of two-thirds of Canada's imports and provides the
market with fully three-quarters of all of Canada's exports.
The United States and Canada have the largest bilateral trade
relationship in the world, a relationship that is remarkable not only
for its strength and general health, but also for the intensity of the
trade and border problems that do frequently develop--as we have seen
this past year with actual farmer border blockades in some border
states because of the unfairness of agricultural trade policies. Over
the last decade, Canada and the United States have signed two major
trade agreements--the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement in
1989, and the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, in 1993.
Notwithstanding these trade accords, numerous disagreements have caused
trade negotiators to shuttle back and forth between Washington and
Ottawa, most recently for solutions to problems for grain trade, wheat
imports, animal trade, and joint cooperation on Biotechnology. I might
add at recent negotiations, there was still no movement towards
solutions for the potato industry, but I have been promised by the USDA
that it is now the top priority for discussion.
Most of the more well-known trade disputes with Canada have involved
agricultural commodities such as Durum wheat, peanut butter, dairy
products, and poultry products, and these disputes, of course, have
impacted more than just the 12 northern border States.
Each and every day, however, an enormous quantity of trade and
traffic crosses the United States-Canada border. These are literally
thousands of businesses, large and small, that rely on this cross-
border traffic and trade for their livelihood.
My own State of Maine has had a long-running dispute with Canada over
that nation's unfair policies in support of its potato industry, and I
know that the upper mid-west and the western states have problems as
well. Specifically, Canada protects its domestic potato growers from
United States competition through a system of nontariff trade barriers,
such as setting container size limitations and a prohibition on bulk
shipments from the United States.
This bulk import prohibition effectively blocks United States potato
imports into Canada and was one topic of discussion during an
International Trade Commission investigations hearing on April 30,
1997, where I testified on behalf of the Maine potato growers. The ITC
followed up with a report stating that Canadian regulations do restrict
imports to bulk shipments of fresh potatoes for processing or
repacking, and that the U.S. maintains no such restrictions. These bulk
shipment restrictions continue, and, at the same time, Canada also
artificially enhances the competitiveness of its product through
domestic subsidies for its potato growers.
Another trade dispute with Canada, specifically with the province of
New Brunswick, originally served as the inspiration for this
legislation. In July 1993, Canadian federal customs officials began
stopping Canadians returning from Maine and collecting from them the
11-percent New Brunswick Provincial Sales Tax [PST] on goods purchased
in Maine. Canadian Customs Officers had already been collecting the
Canadian federal sales tax all across the United States-Canada border.
The collection of the New Brunswick PST was specifically targeted
against goods purchased in Maine--not on goods purchased in any of the
other provinces bordering New Brunswick.
After months of imploring the U.S. Trade Representative to do
something about the imposition of the unfairly administered tax, then
Ambassador Kantor agreed that the New Brunswick PST was a violation of
NAFTA, and that the United States would include the PST issue in the
NAFTA dispute settlement process. But despite this explicit assurance,
the issue was not, in fact, brought before NAFTA's dispute settlement
process, prompting Congress in 1996, to include an amendment I offered
to immigration reform legislation calling for the U.S. Trade
Representative to take this action without further delay. But, it took
three years for a resolution, and even then, the resolution was not
crafted by the USTR.
Throughout the early months of the PST dispute, we in the state of
Maine had enormous difficulty convincing our Federal trade officials
that the PST was in fact an international trade dispute that warranted
their attention and action. We had no way of knowing, whether problems
similar to the PST dispute existed elsewhere along the United States-
Canada border, or whether it was a more localized problem. If a body
like the Northern Border States Council had existed when the collection
of the PST began, it could have immediately started investigating the
issue to determine its impact and would have made recommendations as to
how to deal with it.
The long-standing pattern of unsuccessful negotiations is alarming,
with no solution on the horizon from the federal entities in charge, as
the industry in Maine and other states in the U.S. continues to strive
to stay competitive despite the trade barriers thrown up against their
potatoes.
In short, the Northern Border States Council will serve as the eyes
and ears of our States that share a border with Canada, and who are
most vulnerable to fluctuations in cross-border trade and traffic. The
Council will be a tool for Federal and State trade officials to use in
monitoring their cross-border trade. It will help insure that national
trade policy regarding America's largest trading partner will be
developed and implemented with an eye towards the unique opportunities
and burdens present to the northern border states.
The Northern Border States Council will be an advisory body, not a
regulatory one. Its fundamental purpose will be to determine the nature
and cause of cross-border trade issues or disputes, and to recommend
how to resolve them.
The duties and responsibilities of the Council will include, but not
be limited to, providing advice and policy recommendations on such
matters as taxation and the regulation of cross-border wholesale and
retail trade in goods and services; taxation, regulation and
subsidization of food, agricultural, energy, and forest-products
commodities; and the potential for Federal and State/provincial laws
and regulations, including customs and immigration regulations, to act
as nontariff barriers to trade.
As an advisory body, the Council will review and comment on all
Federal and/or State reports, studies, and practices concerning United
States-Canada trade, with particular emphasis on all reports from the
dispute settlement panels established under NAFTA. These Council
reviews will be conducted upon the request of the United States Trade
Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, a Member of Congress from
any Council State, or the Governor of a Council State.
If the Council determines that the origin of a cross-border trade
dispute resides with Canada, the Council would determine, to the best
of its ability, if the source of the dispute in the Canadian Federal
Government or a Canadian Provencal government.
The goal of this legislation is not to create another Federal trade
bureaucracy. The Council will be made up of individuals nominated by
the Governors and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Each northern
border State will have two members on the Council. The Council members
will be unpaid, and serve as 2-year term.
The Northern Border States Council on United States-Canada Trade will
not solve all of our trade problems with Canada. But it will ensure
that the voices and views of our northern border States are heard in
Washington by our

[[Page 865]]

Federal trade officials. For too long their voices have been ignored,
and the northern border States have had to suffer severe economic
consequences at various times because of it. This legislation will
bring our States into their rightful position as full partners for
issues that affect cross-border trade and traffic with our country's
largest trading partner. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
this important legislation.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 120. A bill to amend title II of the Trade Act of 1974 to clarify
the definition of domestic industry and to include certain agricultural
products for purposes of providing relief from injury caused by import
competition, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

the agricultural trade reform act of 1999

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to give
agricultural producers, including potato producers, some important and
badly needed new tools for combating injurious increases in imports
from foreign countries.
The Trade Act of 1974 contains provisions that permit U.S. industries
to seek relief from serious injury caused by increased quantities of
imports. In practice, however, it has been very difficult for many U.S.
industries to actually secure action under the Act to remedy this kind
of injury.
The ineffectiveness of the Act results from some of the specific
language in the statute. Specifically, the law requires the
International Trade Commission, when evaluating a petition for relief
from injury, to consider whether the injury affects the entire U.S.
industry, or a segment of an industry located in a ``major geographic
area'' of the U.S. whose production constitutes a ``substantial
portion'' of the total domestic injury. This language has been
interpreted by the ITC to mean that all or nearly all of the U.S.
industry must be seriously injured by the imports before it can qualify
for any relief.
Thus, if an important segment of an industry is being severely
injured by imports that compete directly with that segment, the
businesses who comprise this portion of the industry do not have much
recourse--even though the industry segment in question may employ
thousands of Americans and generate billions of dollars annually for
the U.S. economy. In other words, our current trade laws leave large
segments of an industry that serve particular regions and markets, or
have other distinguishing features, practically helpless in the face of
sharp and damaging import surges.
In addition, even if large industry subdivisions could qualify for
assistance, the time frames under the Trade Act for expedited, or
provisional, relief for agricultural products are too long to respond
in time to prevent or adequately remedy injury caused by increasing
imports. At a minimum, three months must elapse before any relief can
be provided, irrespective of the damage that American businesses may
suffer during that time. And three months is an absolute minimum. In
reality, it could take substantially longer to provide expedited
relief.
Mr. President, when it comes to agricultural products, the problems
in U.S. trade law that I have described remain acute. Due to their
perishable nature, many agricultural products cannot be inventoried
until imports subside or the ITC grants relief--if the industry is so
fortunate--many months or even years later. And most agricultural
producers, who are heavily dependent on credit each year to produce and
sell a crop, cannot wait that long. They need assistance in the short-
term, while the injury is occurring, if they are going to survive an
import surge.
Also, because crops are grown during particular seasons and serve
specific markets related to production in those growing seasons, the
agricultural industry is more prone to segmentation. Finally, many of
the agricultural industry entities that would have to file a petition
for relief under the Trade Act are really grower groups that do not
necessarily have the financial wherewithal to spend millions of dollars
researching, filing, and pursuing a petition before the ITC.
The bill that I have introduced today is designed to empower
America's agricultural producers to seek and obtain effective remedies
for damaging import surges. It will make the Trade Act more user
friendly for American businesses. Unlike the current law, which sets
criteria for ITC consideration that are impossible to meet and that do
not reflect the realities of today's industry, my bill establishes more
useful criteria. It permits the ITC to consider the impacts of import
surges on an important segment of an agricultural industry when
determining whether a domestic industry has been injured by imports.
This segment is defined as a portion of the domestic industry located
in a specific geographic area whose collective production constitutes a
significant portion of the entire domestic industry. The ITC would also
be required to consider whether this segment primarily serves the
domestic market in the specific geographic area, and whether
substantial imports are entering the area.
Rather than rely solely on an industry petition to initiate an ITC
review of whether provisional, or expedited, relief deserves to be
granted, my bill would permit the United States Trade Representative or
the Congress, via a resolution, to request such review.
Because the time frames in the present law for considering and
providing provisional relief are so long that the damage from imports
can already be done well before a decision by the ITC is ever issued,
this bill would shorten the time frame for provisional relief
determinations by the ITC by allowing the commission to waive, in
certain circumstances, the act's requirement that imports be monitored
by the USTR for at least 90 days.
And, finally, the bill expands the list of agricultural products
eligible for provisional relief to include any potato product,
including processed potato products. Under current law, only perishable
agricultural products and citrus products are eligible to apply for
expedited relief determinations. But this narrow eligibility list
unreasonably excludes important U.S. agribusinesses, such as our frozen
french fry producers, from the expedited remedies available in the
Trade Act.
For too long, American agriculture has been trying to combat
sophisticated foreign competition with the equivalent of sticks and
stones. My bill strengthens the position of American agricultural
producers in the competitive arena, and will help provide effective
remedies for agricultural producers, and provide effective deterrents
to the depredations of their competitors from other countries. I hope
other senators with a interest in fair play for our domestic
agricultural producers will join me I cosponsoring this important
legislation.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 121. A bill to amend certain Federal civil rights statutes to
prevent the involuntary application of arbitration to claims that arise
from unlawful employment discrimination based on race, color, religion,
sex, age, or disability, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

CIVIL RIGHTS PROCEDURES PROTECTION ACT

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Civil
Rights Procedures Protection Act of 1999. The 106th Congress will mark
the fourth successive Congress in which I have introduced this
legislation. Very simply Mr. President, this legislation addresses the
rapidly growing and very troubling practice of employers conditioning
employment or professional advancement upon their employees'
willingness to submit claims of discrimination or harassment to
arbitration, rather than pursuing them in the courts. In other words,
employees raising claims of harassment or discrimination by their
employers must submit the adjudication of those claims to arbitration,
denying themselves any other remedies may exist under the laws of this
Nation.
The right to seek redress in a court of law--the right to a jury
trial--is one of the most basic rights accorded to employees in this
nation. In the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress expressly

[[Page 866]]

created this right to a jury trial for employees when it voted
overwhelmingly to amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and other civil rights and
labor laws, such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
is being circumvented by companies that require all employees to submit
to mandatory, binding arbitration. In other words, the company is
compelling an agreement to arbitration without regard to basic civil
rights of American workers or their right to secure final resolution of
such disputes in a court of law under the rules of fairness and due
process.
How then does the practice of mandatory, binding arbitration comport
with the purpose and spirit of our nation's civil rights and sexual
harassment laws? The answer is simply that it does not.
To address the growing incidents of compulsory arbitration, the Civil
Rights Procedures Protection Act of 1999 amends seven civil rights
statutes to guarantee that a federal civil rights or sexual harassment
plaintiff can still seek the protection of the U.S. courts rather than
be forced into mandatory, binding arbitration. Specifically, this
legislation affects claims raised under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1965, Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 1977 of the Revised Statutes,
the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA). In the context of the Federal Arbitration Act,
the protections of this legislation are extended to claims of unlawful
discrimination arising under State or local law and other Federal laws
that prohibit job discrimination.
Mr. President, this bill is not anti-arbitration, anti-mediation, or
anti-alternative dispute resolution. I have long been and will remain a
strong supporter of ``voluntary forms'' of alternative methods of
dispute resolution that allow the parties to choose not to proceed to
litigation. Rather, this bill targets only mandatory binding
arbitration clauses in employment contracts. Increasingly, working men
and women are faced with the choice of accepting a mandatory
arbitration clause in their employment agreement or no employment at
all. Despite the appearance of a freely negotiated contract, the
reality often amounts to a non-negotiable requirement that prospective
employees relinquish their rights to redress in a court of law.
Mandatory arbitration allows employers to tell all current and
prospective employees in effect, ``If you want to work for us, you will
have to check your rights at the door.'' These requirements have been
referred to as ``front door'' contracts; that is, they require an
employee to surrender certain rights in order to ``get in the front
door.'' As a nation which values work and deplores discrimination, we
should not allow this practice to continue.
As I noted Mr. President, the 106th Congress marks the fourth
successive Congress in which I have introduced this important
legislation. In the past year, we have made some advances addressing
the unfair use of mandatory binding arbitration clauses. Due to the
attention focused on this issue through this legislation, a hearing in
the Banking Committee last session, and a series of articles and
editorials in prominent periodicals, the National Association of
Securities Dealers (NASD) agreed to remove the mandatory binding
arbitration clause from its Form U-4, which all prospective securities
dealers sign as a condition of employment. The NASD's decision to
remove the binding arbitration clause, however, does not prohibit its
constituent organizations from including a mandatory, binding
arbitration clause in their own employment agreements, even if it is
not mandated by the industry as a whole.
These changes in the securities industry are a positive development,
but the trend toward the use of mandatory, binding arbitration clauses
in many industries continues. This bill restores the ability of working
men and women to pursue their rights in a venue that they choose and
therefore restores and reinvigorates the spirit of our nation's civil
rights and sexual harassment laws in the context of these employment
contracts. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 121

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 ``Civil Rights Procedures
Protection Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF
1964.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``SEC. 719. EXCLUSIVITY OF POWERS AND PROCEDURES.

``Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal law
that expressly refers to this title) that would otherwise
modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable
to a right or claim arising under this title, such powers and
procedures shall be the exclusive powers and procedures
applicable to such right or such claim unless after such
right or such claim arises the claimant voluntarily enters
into an agreement to enforce such right or resolve such claim
through arbitration or another procedure.''.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT
OF 1967.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C.
621 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 16 and 17 as sections 17 and
18, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 15 the following new section
16:

``SEC. 16. EXCLUSIVITY OF POWERS AND PROCEDURES.

``Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal law
that expressly refers to this Act) that would otherwise
modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable
to a right or claim arising under this Act, such powers and
procedures shall be the exclusive powers and procedures
applicable to such right or such claim unless after such
right or such claim arises the claimant voluntarily enters
into an agreement to enforce such right or resolve such claim
through arbitration or another procedure.''.

SEC. 4. AMENDMENT TO THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973.

Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
794a) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(c) Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal
law that expressly refers to this title) that would otherwise
modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable
to a right or claim arising under section 501, such powers
and procedures shall be the exclusive powers and procedures
applicable to such right or such claim unless after such
right or such claim arises the claimant voluntarily enters
into an agreement to enforce such right or resolve such claim
through arbitration or another procedure.''.

SEC. 5. AMENDMENT TO THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF
1990.

Section 107 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12117) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(c) Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal
law that expressly refers to this Act) that would otherwise
modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable
to a right or claim based on a violation described in
subsection (a), such powers and procedures shall be the
exclusive powers and procedures applicable to such right or
such claim unless after such right or such claim arises the
claimant voluntarily enters into an agreement to enforce such
right or resolve such claim through arbitration or another
procedure.''.

SEC. 6. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1977 OF THE REVISED STATUTES.

Section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal
law that expressly refers to this section) that would
otherwise modify any of the powers and procedures expressly
applicable to a right or claim concerning making and
enforcing a contract of employment under this section, such
powers and procedures shall be the exclusive powers and
procedures applicable to such right or such claim unless
after such right or such claim arises the claimant
voluntarily enters into an agreement to enforce such right or
resolve such claim through arbitration or another
procedure.''.

SEC. 7. AMENDMENT TO THE EQUAL PAY REQUIREMENT UNDER THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.

Section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 206(d)) is amended by

[[Page 867]]

adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal
law that expressly refers to this Act) that would otherwise
modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable
to a right or claim arising under this subsection, such
powers and procedures shall be the exclusive powers and
procedures applicable to such right or such claim unless
after such right or such claim arises the claimant
voluntarily enters into an agreement to enforce such right or
resolve such claim through arbitration or another
procedure.''.

SEC. 8. AMENDMENT TO THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF
1993.

Title IV of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29
U.S.C. 2651 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 405 as section 406; and
(2) by inserting after section 404 the following new
section:

``SEC. 405. EXCLUSIVITY OF REMEDIES.

``Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal law
that expressly refers to this Act or a provision of
subchapter V of chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code)
that would modify any of the powers and procedures expressly
applicable to a right or claim arising under this Act or
under such subchapter such powers and procedures shall be the
exclusive powers and procedures applicable to such right or
such claim unless after such right or such claim arises the
claimant voluntarily enters into an agreement to enforce such
right or resolve such claim through arbitration or another
procedure.''.

SEC. 9. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 9, UNITED STATES CODE.

Section 14 of title 9, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``This''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) This chapter shall not apply with respect to a claim
of unlawful discrimination in employment if such claim arises
from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, age, or disability.''.

SEC. 10. APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to
claims arising not later than the date of enactment of this
Act.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 122. A bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to ensure
equitable treatment of members of the National Guard and the other
reserve components of the United States with regard to eligibility to
receive special duty assignment pay, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Armed Services.

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE SPECIAL DUTY ASSIGNMENT PAY EQUITY ACT OF
1999

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that restores a measure of pay equity for our nation's Guardsmen and
Reservists. The men and women who serve in the Guard and Reserves are
the cornerstones of our national defense and domestic infrastructure
and deserve more than a pat on the back.
Mr. President, as I'm certain my colleagues are well aware, the Guard
and Reserve are integral parts of overseas missions, including recent
and on-going missions to Iraq and Bosnia. According to statements by
DOD officials, guardsmen and reservists will continue to play an
increasingly important role in national defense strategy. The National
Guard and Reserves deserve the full support they need to carry out
their duties.
National Guard and Reserve members are becoming increasingly relied
upon to shoulder more of the burden of military operations. We need to
compensate our citizen-soldiers for this increasing reliance on the
Reserve forces. Mr. President, this boils down to an issue of fairness.
Mr. President, my bill would correct special duty assignment pay
inequities between the Reserve components and the active duty. These
inequities should be corrected to take into account the National Guard
and Reserves' increased role in our national security, especially on
the front lines. Given the increased use of the Reserve components and
DOD's increased reliance on them, Reservists deserve fair pay. My bill
states that a Reservist who is entitled to basic pay and is performing
special duty be paid special duty assignment pay.
Mr. President, right now, Reservists are getting shortchanged despite
the vital role they play in our national defense. The special duty
assignment pay program ensures readiness by compensating specific
soldiers who are assigned to duty positions that demand special
training and extraordinary effort to maintain a level of satisfactory
performance. The program, as it stands now, effectively reduces the
ability of the National Guard and Reserve to retain highly dedicated
and specialized soldiers.
The special duty assignment pay program provides an additional
monthly financial incentive paid to enlisted soldiers and airmen who
are required to perform extremely demanding duties that require an
unusual degree of responsibility. These special duty assignments
include certain command sergeants major, guidance counselors, retention
non-commissioned officers (NCO's), drill sergeants, and members of the
Special Forces. These soldiers, however, do not receive special duty
assignment pay while in an IDT status (drill weekends).
Between fiscal years 1998 and 1999, spending for the program was cut
by $1.6 million, which has placed a fiscal restraint on the number of
personnel the Army National Guard is able to provide for under this
program. These soldiers deserve better.
Mr. President, this bill is paid for by terminating the ineffective,
unnecessary, outdated Cold War relic known as Project ELF, or the
Extremely Low Frequency Communication System, which costs approximately
$12 million per year.
Mr. President, the differences in pay and benefits are particularly
disturbing since National Guard and Reserve members give up their
civilian salaries during the time they are called up or volunteer for
active duty.
As I'm sure all my colleagues have heard, the President will propose
an enormous boost in defense spending over the next six years; an
increase of $12 billion for fiscal year 2000 and about $110 billion
over the next six years. I have tremendous reservations about spending
hikes of this magnitude, but have no such reservations in supporting
this nation's citizen-soldiers. The National Guard and Reserve deserve
pay and benefit equity and that means paying them what they're worth.
Mr. President, according to the National Guard, shortfalls in the
operations and maintenance account compromise the Guard's readiness
levels, capabilities, force structure, and end strength. Failing to
fully support these vital areas will have both direct and indirect
effects. The shortfall puts the Guard's personnel, schools, training,
full-time support, and retention and recruitment at risk. Perhaps more
importantly, however, it erodes the morale of our citizen-soldiers.
Over these past years, the Administration has increasingly called on
the Guard and Reserves to handle wider-ranging tasks, while
simultaneously offering defense budgets with shortfalls of hundreds of
millions of dollars. These shortfalls have increasingly greater effect
given the Guard and Reserves' increased operations burdens. This is a
result of new missions, increased deployments, and training
requirements.
Earlier this month, Charles Cragin, the assistant secretary of
defense for reserve affairs, presented DOD's position with regard to
the department's working relationship with the National Guard and
Reserve. He stated that all branches of the military reserves will be
called upon more frequently as the nation pares back the number of
soldiers on active duty. This has clearly been DOD's policy for the
past few years, but Mr. Cragin went a little further by stating that
the reserve units can no longer be considered ``weekend warriors'' but
primary components of national defense.
Mr. President, in the past, DOD viewed the Armed Forces as a two-
pronged system, with active-duty troops being the primary prong,
reinforced by the Reserve component. That strategy has changed with the
downsizing of active forces. Defense officials now see reserves as part
of the ``total force'' of the military.
The National Guard and Reserves will be called more frequently to
active duty for domestic support roles and abroad in various peace-
keeping efforts. They will also be vital players on special teams
trained to deal with weapons of mass destruction deployed

[[Page 868]]

within our own borders. According to many military experts, this
represents a more salient threat to the United States than the threat
of a ballistic missile attack that many of my colleagues have spent so
much time addressing.
As I'm sure my colleagues know by now, the Army National Guard
represents a full 34 percent of total army forces, including 55 percent
of combat divisions and brigades, 46 percent of combat support, and 25
percent of combat service support, yet receives just 9.5 percent of
Army funds.
Mr. President, it should come as no surprise that we have failed to
invest fully in the National Guard. It's no surprise because it's the
best bargain in the Defense Department. DOD has never been known as a
frugal department. From $436 hammers to $640 toilet seats to $2 billion
bombers that don't work and the department doesn't seem to want to use,
the Department of Defense has a storied history of wasting our tax
dollars. Here is an opportunity to spend defense dollars on something
that works, that is worthwhile, and enjoys broad support on both sides
of the aisle.
The National Guard fits the bill. According to a National Guard
study, the average cost to train and equip an active duty soldier is
$73,000 per year, while it costs $17,000 per year to train and equip a
National Guard soldier. The cost of maintaining Army National Guard
units is just 23 percent of the cost of maintaining Active Army units.
It is time for the Pentagon to quit complaining about lack of funding
and begin using their money more wisely and efficiently.
Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to see some of these
soldiers off as they embarked on these missions and have welcomed them
home upon their return, and I have been struck by the courage and
professionalism they display. Guardsmen and Reservists have been vital
on overseas missions, and here at home. In Wisconsin, the State Guard
provides vital support during state emergencies, including floods, ice
storms, and train derailments.
Mr. President, we have a duty to honor the service of our National
Guardsmen and Reservists. One way to do that is to adequately
compensate them for their service. I hope my colleagues agree that our
citizen-soldiers serve an invaluable role in our national defense, and
their paychecks should reflect their contribution.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 122

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 ``Guard and Reserve Special
Duty Assignment Pay Equity Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. ENTITLEMENT OF RESERVES NOT ON ACTIVE DUTY TO RECEIVE
SPECIAL DUTY ASSIGNMENT PAY.

(a) Authority.--Section 307(a) of title 37, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after ``is entitled to basic
pay'' in the first sentence the following: ``, or is entitled
to compensation under section 206 of this title in the case
of a member of a reserve component not on active duty,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the first day of the first month that
begins on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. OFFSET OF COST BY TERMINATION OF THE OPERATION OF THE
EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM OF
THE NAVY.

(a) Termination Required.--The Secretary of the Navy shall
terminate the operation of the Extremely Low Frequency
Communication System of the Navy.
(b) Maintenance of Infrastructure.--The Secretary shall
maintain the infrastructure necessary for resuming operation
of the Extremely Low Frequency Communication System.
(c) Excess Savings To Be Credited to Deficit Reduction.--To
the extent, if any, that the amount of expenditures forgone
for a fiscal year for the operation of the Extremely Low
Frequency Communication System by reason of this section
exceeds the increased cost of paying special duty assignment
pay in that fiscal year as a result of the amendment made by
section 2, the excess amount shall be credited to budget
deficit reduction for that fiscal year.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 123. A bill to phase out Federal funding of the Tennessee Valley
Authority; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

tennessee valley authority

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation,
similar to bills I offered in the two previous Congresses, to terminate
funding for the non-power programs of the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA). In FY 99, after terminating funding for these programs in the FY
99 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, the Congress revived funding
for these programs in the Omnibus Appropriations measure.
The TVA was created in 1933 as a government-owned corporation for the
unified development of a river basin comprised of parts of seven
states. Those activities included the construction of an extensive
power system, for which the region is now famous, and regional
development or ``non-power'' programs. TVA's responsibilities in the
non-power programs include maintaining its system of dams, reservoirs
and navigation facilities, and managing TVA-held lands. In addition,
TVA provides recreational programs, makes economic development grants
to communities, promotes public use of its land and water resources,
and operates an Environmental Research Center. Only the TVA power
programs are intended to be self-supporting, by relying on TVA utility
customers to foot the bill. The cost of these ``non-power'' programs,
on the other hand, is covered by appropriated taxpayer funds.
This legislation terminates funding for all appropriated programs of
the TVA after FY 2000. While I understand the role that TVA has played
in our history, I also know that we face tremendous federal budget
pressure to reduce spending in many areas. I believe that TVA's
discretionary funds should be on the table, and that Congress should
act, in accordance with this legislation, to put the TVA appropriated
programs on a glide path toward dependence on sources of funds other
than appropriated funds. This legislation is a reasonable phased-in
approach to achieve this objective, and explicitly codifies both prior
recommendations made by the Administration and the TVA Chairman.
We should terminate TVA's appropriated programs because there are
lingering concerns, brought to light in a 1993 Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) report, that non-power program funds subsidize activities
that should be paid for by non-federal interests. When I ran for the
Senate in 1992, I developed an 82+ point plan to eliminate the federal
deficit and have continued to work on the implementation of that plan
since that time. That plan includes a number of elements in the natural
resource area, including the termination of TVA's appropriations-funded
programs.
In its 1993 report, CBO focused on two programs: the TVA Stewardship
Program and the Environmental Research Center, which no longer receives
federal funds. Stewardship activities receive the largest share of
TVA's appropriated funds. The funds are used for dam repair and
maintenance activities. According to 1995 testimony provided by TVA
before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations, when
TVA repairs a dam it pays 70%, on average, of repair costs with
appropriated dollars and covers the remaining 30% with funds collected
from electricity ratepayers.
This practice of charging a portion of dam repair costs to the
taxpayer, CBO highlighted, amounts to a significant subsidy. If TVA
were a private utility, and it made modifications to a dam or performed
routine dredging, the ratepayers would pay for all of the costs
associated with that activity.
Despite CBO's charges that a portion of the Stewardship funds may be
subsidizing the power program, I have heard from a number of my
constituents who are concerned that some of the TVA's non-power
activities are critical federal functions. In order to be certain that
Congress would be acting properly to terminate certain functions while
preserving others under TVA or transferring them to other federal
agencies, this bill directs OMB to

[[Page 869]]

study TVA's non-power programs. That study, which must be completed by
June 1, 1999, requires OMB to evaluate TVA's non-power programs,
describe which of those are necessary federal functions, and recommend
whether those which are federal functions should be performed by TVA or
by another agency. That way, Mr. President, Congress will be fully
informed before making a final decision to terminate these funds.
Again, while I understand the important role that TVA played in the
development of the Tennessee Valley, many other areas of the country
have become more creative in federal and state financing arrangements
to address regional concerns. Specifically, in those areas where there
may be excesses within TVA, I believe we can do better to curb
subsidies and eliminate the burden on taxpayers without completely
eliminating the TVA, as some in the other body have suggested.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this measure be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 123

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

SECTION 1. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.

(a) Discontinuance of Appropriations.--Section 27 of the
Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831z), is
amended by inserting ``for fiscal years through fiscal year
2000'' before the period.
(b) Plan.--Not later than June 1, 1999, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall develop and submit a
plan to Congress that--
(1) reviews the non-power activities conducted by the
Tennessee Valley Authority using appropriated funds; and
(2) determines whether the non-power activities performed
by the Tennessee Valley Authority can be adequately performed
by other federal agencies, and if so, describes the resources
needed by other agencies to perform such activities; and
(3) describes on-going federal interest in the continuation
of the non-power activities currently performed by the
Tennessee Valley Authority; and
(4) recommends any legislation that may be appropriate to
carry out the objectives of this Act.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 124. A bill to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to prohibit
the Secretary of Agriculture from basing minimum prices for Class I
milk on the distance or transportation costs from any location that is
not within a marketing area, except under certain circumstances, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.

ABOLISHING THE ANTI-EAU CLAIRE RULE

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a measure which
will serve as a first step towards eliminating the inequities borne by
the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and the upper Midwest under the Federal
Milk Marketing Order system. The Federal Milk Marketing Order system,
created nearly 60 years ago, establishes minimum prices for milk paid
to producers throughout various marketing areas in the U.S. For sixty
years, this system has discriminated against producers in the Upper
Midwest by awarding a high price to dairy farmers in proportion to the
distance of their farms from Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
This legislation is very simple. It identifies the single most
harmful and unjust feature of the current system, and corrects it.
Under the current archaic law, the price for fluid milk increases at
a rate of 21 cents per hundred miles from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, even
though most milk marketing orders do not receive any milk from
Wisconsin. Fluid milk prices, as a result, are $2.98 higher in Florida
than in Wisconsin and over $1.00 higher in Texas. This method of
pricing fluid milk is not only arbitrary, but also out of date and out
of sync with the market conditions of 1999. It is time for this method
of pricing--known as single-basing-point pricing--to come to an end.
The bill I introduce today will prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture
from using distance or transportation costs from any location as the
basis for pricing milk, unless significant quantities of milk are
actually transported from that location into the recipient market. The
Secretary will have to comply with the statutory requirement that
supply and demand factors be considered as specified in the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act when setting milk prices in
marketing orders. The fact remains that single-basing-point pricing
simply cannot be justified based on supply and demand for milk both in
local and national markets.
This bill also requires the Secretary to report to Congress on
specifically which criteria are used to set milk prices. Finally, the
Secretary will have to certify to Congress that the criteria used by
the Department do not in any way attempt to circumvent the prohibition
on using distance or transportation cost as basis for pricing milk.
This one change is so crucial to Upper Midwest producers, because the
current system has penalized them for many years. By providing
disparate profits for producers in other parts of the country and
creating artificial economic incentives for milk production, Wisconsin
producers have seen national surpluses rise, and milk prices fall.
Rather than providing adequate supplies of fluid milk in some parts of
the country, the prices have led to excess production.
The prices have provided production incentives beyond those needed to
ensure a local supply of fluid milk in some regions, leading to an
increase in manufactured products in those marketing orders. Those
manufactured products directly compete with Wisconsin's processed
products, eroding our markets and driving national prices down.
The perverse nature of this system is further illustrated by the fact
that since 1995 some regions of the U.S., notably the Central states
and the Southwest, are producing so much milk that they are actually
shipping fluid milk north to the Upper Midwest. The high fluid milk
prices have generated so much excess production, that these markets
distant from Eau Claire are now encroaching upon not only our
manufactured markets, but also our markets for fluid milk, further
eroding prices in Wisconsin.
The market distorting effects of the fluid price differentials in
federal orders are manifest in the Congressional Budget Office estimate
that eliminating the orders would save $669 million over five years.
Government outlays would fall, CBO concludes, because production would
fall in response to lower milk prices and there would be fewer
government purchases of surplus milk. The regions which would gain and
lose in this scenario illustrate the discrimination inherent to the
current system. Economic analyses show that farm revenues in a market
undisturbed by Federal Orders would actually increase in the Upper
Midwest and fall in most other milk-producing regions.
The data clearly show that Upper Midwest producers are hurt by
distortions built into a single-basing-point system that prevent them
from competing effectively in a national market.
While this system has been around since 1937, the practice of basing
fluid milk price differentials on the distance from Eau Claire was
formalized in the 1960's, when the Upper Midwest arguably was the
primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to
encourage local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that did
not traditionally produce enough fluid milk to meet their own needs.
Mr. President, that is no longer the case. The Upper Midwest is
neither the lowest cost production area nor a primary source of reserve
supplies of milk. In many of the markets with higher fluid milk
differentials, milk is produced efficiently, and in some cases, at
lower cost than the Upper Midwest. Unfortunately, the prices didn't
adjust with changing economic conditions, most notably the shift of the
dairy industry away from the Upper Midwest and towards the Southwest,
specifically California, which now leads the nation in milk production.
Fluid milk prices should have been lowered to reflect that trend.
Instead, in 1985, the prices were increased for markets distant from
Eau Claire.

[[Page 870]]

USDA has refused to use the administrative authority provided by
Congress to make the appropriate adjustments to reflect economic
realities. They continue to stand behind single-basing-point pricing.
The result has been a decline in the Upper Midwest dairy industry,
not because they can't produce a product that can compete in the market
place, but because the system discriminates against them. Since 1980,
Wisconsin has lost over 15,000 dairy farmers. Today, Wisconsin loses
dairy farmers at a rate of 5 per day. The Upper Midwest, with the
lowest fluid milk prices, is shrinking as a dairy region despite the
dairy-friendly climate of the region. Other regions with higher fluid
milk prices are growing rapidly.
In an unregulated market with a level playing field, these shifts in
production might be fair. But in a market where the government is
setting the prices and providing that artificial advantage to regions
outside the Upper Midwest, the current system is unconscionable.
This bill is a first step in reforming federal orders by prohibiting
a grossly unfair practice that should have been dropped long ago.
Although I understand that, because of mandates in the 1996 Farm Bill,
the USDA is currently deliberating possible changes to the current
system, one of the options being considered maintains this debilitating
single-basing-point pricing system. This bill is the beginning of
reform. It identifies the one change that is absolutely necessary in
any outcome--the elimination of single-basing-point pricing.
I urge the Secretary of Agriculture to do the right thing and bring
reform to this out-dated system. No proposal is reform without this
important policy change.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 124

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

SECTION 1. LOCATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR MINIMUM PRICES FOR CLASS
I MILK.

Section 8c(5) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C.
608c(5)), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural
Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (A)--
(A) in clause (3) of the second sentence, by inserting
after ``the locations'' the following: ``within a marketing
area subject to the order''; and
(B) by striking the last 2 sentences and inserting the
following: ``Notwithstanding subsection (18) or any other
provision of law, when fixing minimum prices for milk of the
highest use classification in a marketing area subject to an
order under this subsection, the Secretary may not, directly
or indirectly, base the prices on the distance from, or all
or part of the costs incurred to transport milk to or from,
any location that is not within the marketing area subject to
the order, unless milk from the location constitutes at least
50 percent of the total supply of milk of the highest use
classification in the marketing area. The Secretary shall
report to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate on the criteria that are used as
the basis for the minimum prices referred to in the preceding
sentence, including a certification that the minimum prices
are made in accordance with the preceding sentence.''; and
(2) in paragraph (B)(c), by inserting after ``the
locations'' the following: ``within a marketing area subject
to the order''.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 125. A bill to reduce the number of executive branch political
appointees; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

REDUCING THE NUMBER OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my good
friend the senior Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) in introducing
legislation to reduce the number of presidential political appointees.
Specifically, the bill caps the number of political appointees at
2,000. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates this measure
would save $333 million over the next five years.
The bill is based on the recommendations of a number of distinguished
panels, including most recently, the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force
on the Presidential Appointment Process. The task force findings,
released last fall, are only the latest in a long line of
recommendations that we reduce the number of political appointees in
the Executive Branch. For many years, the proposal has been included in
CBO's annual publication Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue
Options, and it was one of the central recommendations of the National
Commission on the Public Service, chaired by former Federal Reserve
Board Chairman Paul Volcker.
Mr. President, this proposal is also consistent with the
recommendations of the Vice President's National Performance Review,
which called for reductions in the number of federal managers and
supervisors, arguing that ``over-control and micro management'' not
only ``stifle the creativity of line managers and workers, they consume
billions per year in salary, benefits, and administrative costs.''
Those sentiments were also expressed in the 1989 report of the
Volcker Commission, when it argued the growing number of presidential
appointees may ``actually undermine effective presidential control of
the executive branch.'' The Volcker Commission recommended limiting the
number of political appointees to 2,000, as this legislation does.
Mr. President, it is essential that any Administration be able to
implement the policies that brought it into office in the first place.
Government must be responsive to the priorities of the electorate. But
as the Volcker Commission noted, the great increase in the number of
political appointees in recent years has not made government more
effective or more responsive to political leadership.
Between 1980 and 1992, the ranks of political appointees grew 17
percent, over three times as fast as the total number of Executive
Branch employees and looking back to 1960 their growth is even more
dramatic. In his recently published book ``Thickening Government:
Federal Government and the Diffusion of Accountability,'' author Paul
Light reports a startling 430% increase in the number of political
appointees and senior executives in Federal government between 1960 and
1992.
In recommending a cap on political appointees, the Volcker Commission
report noted that the large number of presidential appointees simply
cannot be managed effectively by any President or White House. The
Commission argued that this lack of control and political focus ``may
actually dilute the President's ability to develop and enforce a
coherent, coordinated program and to hold cabinet secretaries
accountable.''
Adding organizational layers of political appointees can also
restrict access to important resources, while doing nothing to reduce
bureaucratic impediments.
In commenting on this problem, author Paul Light noted, ``As this
sediment has thickened over the decades, presidents have grown
increasingly distant from the lines of government, and the front lines
from them.'' Light added that ``Presidential leadership, therefore, may
reside in stripping government of the barriers to doing its job
effectively. . .''
The Volcker Commission also asserted that this thickening barrier of
temporary appointees between the President and career officials can
undermine development of a proficient civil service by discouraging
talented individuals from remaining in government service or even
pursuing a career in government in the first place.
Mr. President, former Attorney General Elliot Richardson put it well
when he noted:

But a White House personnel assistant sees the position of
deputy assistant secretary as a fourth-echelon slot. In his
eyes that makes it an ideal reward for a fourth-echelon
political type--a campaign advance man, or a regional
political organizer. For a senior civil servant, it's irksome
to see a position one has spent 20 or 30 years preparing for
preempted by an outsider who doesn't know the difference
between an audit exception and an authorizing bill.

Mr. President, the report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force

[[Page 871]]

on the Presidential Appointment Process identified another problem
aggravated by the mushrooming number of political appointees, namely
the increasingly lengthy process of filling these thousands of
positions. As the Task Force reported, both President Bush and
President Clinton were into their presidencies for many months before
their leadership teams were fully in place. The Task Force noted that
``on average, appointees in both administrations were confirmed more
than eight months after the inauguration--one-sixth of an entire
presidential term.'' By contrast, the report noted that in the
presidential transition of 1960, ``Kennedy appointees were confirmed,
on average, two and a half months after the inauguration.''
In addition to leaving vacancies among key leadership positions in
government, the appointment process delays can have a detrimental
effect on potential appointees. The Twentieth Century Fund Task Force
reported that appointees can ``wait for months on end in a limbo of
uncertainty and awkward transition from the private to the public
sector.''
Mr. President, there have been some modest reductions in the number
of political appointees in recent years, but further reductions are
needed.
The sacrifices that deficit reduction efforts require must be spread
among all of us. This measure requires us to bite the bullet and impose
limitations upon political appointments that both parties may well wish
to retain. The test of commitment to deficit reduction, however, is not
simply to propose measure that impact someone else.
As reduce the number of government employees, streamline agencies,
and make government more responsive, we should also right size the
number of political appointees, ensuring a sufficient number to
implement the policies of any Administration without burdening the
Federal budget with unnecessary, possibly counterproductive political
jobs.
Mr. President, when I ran for the U.S. Senate in 1992, I developed an
82 point plan to reduce the Federal deficit and achieve a balanced
budget. Since that time, I have continued to work toward enactment of
many of the provisions of that plan and have added new provisions on a
regular basis.
The legislation I am introducing today reflects one of the points
included on the original 82 point plan calling for streamlining various
federal agencies and reducing agency overhead costs. I am pleased to
have this opportunity to continue to work toward implementation of the
elements of the deficit reduction plan.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 125

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

SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF POLITICAL APPOINTEES.

(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``political
appointee'' means any individual who--
(1) is employed in a position on the executive schedule
under sections 5312 through 5316 of title 5, United States
Code;
(2) is a limited term appointee, limited emergency
appointee, or noncareer appointee in the senior executive
service as defined under section 3132(a) (5), (6), and (7) of
title 5, United States Code, respectively; or
(3) is employed in a position in the executive branch of
the Government of a confidential or policy-determining
character under Schedule C of subpart C of part 213 of title
5 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(b) Limitation.--The President, acting through the Office
of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel
Management, shall take such actions as necessary (including
reduction in force actions under procedures established under
section 3595 of title 5, United States Code) to ensure that
the total number of political appointees shall not exceed
2,000.
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on
October 1, 1999.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 126. A bill to terminate the Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences; to the Committee on Armed Services.

TERMINATING THE UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation
terminating the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
(USUHS), a medical school run by the Department of Defense. The measure
is one I proposed when I ran for the U.S. Senate, and was part of a
larger, 82 point plan to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The most
recent estimates of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) project that
terminating the school would save $273 million over the next five
years, and when completely phased-out, would generate $450 million in
savings over five years.
USUHS was created in 1972 to meet an expected shortage of military
medical personnel. Today, however, USUHS accounts for only a small
fraction of the military's new physicians, less than 12 percent in 1994
according to CBO. This contrasts dramatically with the military's
scholarship program which provided over 80 percent of the military's
new physicians in that year.
Mr. President, what is even more troubling is that USUHS is also the
single most costly source of new physicians for the military. CBO
reports that based on figures from 1995, each USUHS trained physician
costs the military $615,000. By comparison, the scholarship program
cost about $125,000 per doctor, with other sources providing new
physicians at a cost of $60,000. As CBO noted in their Spending and
Revenue Options publication, even adjusting for the lengthier service
commitment required of USUHS trained physicians, the cost of training
them is still higher than that of training physicians from other
sources, an assessment shared by the Pentagon itself. Indeed, CBO's
estimate of the savings generated by this measure also includes the
cost of obtaining physicians from other sources.
The House of Representatives has voted to terminate this program on
several occasions, and the Vice President's National Performance Review
joined others, ranging from the Grace Commission to the CBO, in raising
the question of whether this medical school, which graduated its first
class in 1980, should be closed because it is so much more costly than
alternative sources of physicians for the military.
Mr. President, the real issue we must address is whether USUHS is
essential to the needs of today's military structure, or if we can do
without this costly program. The proponents of USUHS frequently cite
the higher retention rates of USUHS graduates over physicians obtained
from other sources as a justification for continuation of this program,
but while a greater percentage of USUHS trained physicians may remain
in the military longer than those from other sources, the Pentagon
indicates that the alternative sources already provide an appropriate
mix of retention rates. Testimony by the Department of Defense before
the Subcommittee on Force Requirements and Personnel noted that the
military's scholarship program meets the retention needs of the
services.
And while USUHS only provides a small fraction of the military's new
physicians, it is important to note that relying primarily on these
other sources has not compromised the ability of military physicians to
meet the needs of the Pentagon. According to the Office of Management
and Budget, of the approximately 2,000 physicians serving in Desert
Storm, only 103, about 5%, were USUHS trained.
Mr. President, let me conclude by recognizing that USUHS has some
dedicated supporters in the U.S. Senate, and I realize that there are
legitimate arguments that those supporters have made in defense of this
institution. The problem, however, is that the federal government can
no longer afford to continue every program that provides some useful
function.
This is especially true in the area of defense spending. Many in this
body argue that the Defense budget is too tight, that a significant
increase in spending is needed to address concerns about shortfalls in
recruitment and retention, maintenance backlogs, and other indicators
of a lower level of readiness.

[[Page 872]]

Mr. President, the debate over our level of readiness is certainly
important, and it may well be that more Defense funding should be
channeled to these specific areas of concern.
But before advocates of an increased Defense budget ask taxpayers to
foot the bill for hundreds of billions more in spending, they owe it to
those taxpayers to trim Defense programs that are not justified.
In the face of our staggering national debt and annual deficits, we
must prioritize and eliminate programs that can no longer be sustained
with limited federal dollars, or where a more cost-effective means of
fulfilling those functions can be substituted. The future of USUHS
continues to be debated precisely because in these times of budget
restraint it does not appear to pass the higher threshold tests which
must be applied to all federal spending programs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 126

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 ``Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences Termination and Deficit
Reduction Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF
THE HEALTH SCIENCES.

(a) Termination.--
(1) In general.--The Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences is terminated.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Chapter 104 of title 10, United States Code, is
repealed.
(B) The table of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of
such title, and at the beginning of part III of such
subtitle, are each amended by striking out the item relating
to chapter 104.
(b) Effective Dates.--
(1) Termination.--The termination of the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences under subsection (a)(1)
shall take effect on the day after the date of the graduation
from the university of the last class of students that
enrolled in such university on or before the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) Amendments.--The amendments made by subsection (a)(2)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,
except that the provisions of chapter 104 of title 10, United
States Code, as in effect on the day before such date, shall
continue to apply with respect to the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences until the termination of
the university under this section.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD;
S. 127. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to
prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from including any storage
charges in the calculation of loan deficiency payments or loans made to
producers for loan commodities; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.

COTTON STORAGE SUBSIDY

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation,
originally introduced in the 105th Congress. This measure will give
relief to the taxpayers of this country, who now pay millions every
year to provide cotton producers with an expensive and unnecessary perk
no other farmer enjoys.
Each year, the Federal Government's Agriculture Department pays
millions of dollars in storage costs for cotton farmers. Last year,
this program provided more than $23 million to store the cotton crop of
participating farmers. My measure puts all commodities on a more equal
footing by eliminating the storage subsidy for cotton, the only
commodity whose producers still enjoy this privilege.
Mr. President, prior to the passage of the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill,
farmers producing wheat and feed grains relied heavily on the Farmer
Owned Reserve Program to assist them in repaying their overdue loans
when times were tough. They would roll their non-recourse loans into
the Farmer Owned Reserve Program which would allow them the opportunity
to pay back their loan, without interest, and also get assistance in
paying storage costs. Although cotton producers were not eligible to
participate in that particular program, they were offered a similar
subsidy and other perks through the cotton program. Those were the days
of heavy agriculture subsidization, when the government dictated
prices, provided price supports, and more often than not, had over-
surpluses of wheat, corn and other feed grains--driving down domestic
prices. The 1996 Farm Bill, sought to bring farm policy in line with a
realistic agricultural and economic view, that the agriculture industry
must be more market oriented--must not rely so much on government price
interference.
Mr. President, although the Farm Bill was successful in ridding
agriculture policy of much of the weight of government intrusion that
burdened it for years, there are still hidden subsidies costing
taxpayers billions. This legislation would prevent USDA from factoring
cotton industry storage costs into Marketing Loan Program calculations.
This costly and unnecessary benefit is bestowed on the producers of no
other commodity.
Farmers, except those who produce cotton, are required to pay storage
cost through the maturity date of their support loans. Producers must
prepay or arrange to pay storage costs through the loan maturity date
or USDA reduces the amount of the loan by deducting the amount
necessary for prepaid storage. Cotton producers are not required to
prepay storage costs. When they redeem a loan under marketing loan
provisions or forfeit collateral, USDA pays the cost of the accrued
storage.
It is interesting to note, Mr. President, that in a 1994 audit of the
cotton program, USDA's Office of Inspector General found no reason for
USDA to pay the accrued storage costs of cotton producers. The
Inspector General recommended that USDA ``revise procedures to
eliminate the automatic payment of cotton storage charges by CCC and
make provisions consistent with the treatment of storage charges on
other program crops''.
Although those in the cotton industry will argue that the automatic
payments were eliminated in the Farm Bill, in reality, those payments
are now simply hidden. It's true that certain provisions have been
removed from the statute which mandates that USDA pay these charges.
Now, USDA freely chooses to waste the taxpayers money by paying these
costs, allowing cotton producers to subtract their storage costs from
the market value of their cotton, providing a larger difference with
the loan rate, and therefore receiving a higher return.
Marketing Loan Programs are designed to encourage producers to redeem
their loans and market their crops, but USDA payment of cotton storage
costs discourage loan redemption. As long as the adjusted world price
is at or below the loan rate, producers can delay loan redemption in
the secure expectation that domestic prices will rise or the adjusted
world price will decline regardless of accruing storage costs.
Mr. President, its time to stop kidding ourselves. Let's eliminate
this subsidy before it costs hardworking Americans any more. Let's
bring equity to the commodities program. Lets finish what the Farm Bill
started--a more market oriented agriculture program. One that benefits
us all.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 127

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

SECTION 1. STORAGE CHARGES FOR LOAN COMMODITIES.

Subtitle C of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7
U.S.C. 7231 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 138. STORAGE CHARGES FOR LOAN COMMODITIES.

``In calculating the amount of a loan deficiency payment or
loan made to a producer for a loan commodity under this
subtitle, the Secretary may not include any storage charges
incurred by the producer in connection with the loan
commodity.''.

[[Page 873]]

______

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Wyden, and Mr.
Johnson):
S. 128. A bill to terminate operation of the Extremely Low Frequency
Communication System of the Navy; to the Committee on Armed Services.

TO TERMINATE OPERATION OF THE EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY COMMUNICATION
SYSTEM OF THE NAVY

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I once again come to the floor to offer
a bill to terminate the Navy's Extremely Low Frequency Communication
System. I am again pleased to be joined in introducing this bill with
the senior Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) and the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. Wyden).
Mr. President, this bill would terminate the operation of the Navy's
Extremely Low Frequency Communication System, or Project ELF, as it's
more familiarly known, while maintaining the infrastructure in
Wisconsin and Michigan for resuming should a resumption in operation
become necessary. As my colleagues are well aware, I have long opposed
this needless project.
Project ELF is an ineffective, unnecessary, outdated Cold War relic
that is not wanted by most residents in my state. The members of the
Wisconsin delegation have fought hard for years to close down Project
ELF; I have introduced legislation during each Congress since taking
office to terminate it; and I have even recommended it for closure to
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.
This project has been opposed by residents of Wisconsin since its
inception, but for years we were told that the national security
considerations of the Cold War outweighed our concerns about this
installation in our state. As we continue our efforts to truly balance
the federal budget and as the Department of Defense continues to
struggle to address readiness concerns, it is clear that Project ELF
should be closed down. If enacted, my legislation would save
approximately $12 million a year.
Project ELF is a one-way, primitive messenger system designed to
signal to--not communicate with--deeply submerged Trident nuclear
submarines. It is a ``bell ringer'', a pricey beeper system, used to
tell the submarine when to rise to the surface to get a detailed
message through a less primitive communications systems.
It was designed at a time when the threat and consequences of
detection to our submarines was real. But ELF was never developed to an
effective capability, and the demise of the Soviet threat has certainly
rendered it unnecessary.
In fact, Mr. President, the submarine capabilities of our potential
adversaries have noticeably deteriorated or remain far behind those of
our Navy. The primary mission of our attack submarines was to fight the
heart of the Soviet navy, its attack submarine force. This mission
included hunting down Soviet submarines. Due to Russia's continued
economic hardships, they continue to cede ground to us in technology
and training. Reports even contend that Russia is having trouble
keeping just one or two of its strategic nuclear submarines
operational. According to General Eugene E. Habiger, USAF (Ret.) and
former commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, Moscow's ``sub fleet is
belly-up.''
Further, of our known potential adversaries, only Russia and China
possess ballistic missile-capable submarines. And China's one ballistic
missile capable submarine is used solely as a test platform. Russia's
submarine fleet has shrunk from more than 300 vessels to about 100.
Even Russia's most modern submarines can't be used to full capability
because Russia can't adequately train its sailors. The threat for which
Project ELF was designed no longer exists.
Even the Pentagon and members of this body are beginning to see the
need for reevaluating our strategic forces, including our Trident
ballistic missile submarines. Earlier this month, Chief of Naval
Operations Admiral Jay Johnson told the Senate Armed Services Committee
that he wants to reduce the fleet from 18 to 14. And Chairman Warner
agreed with the need to reevaluate priorities on strategic weapons.
With the end of the Cold War, Project ELF becomes harder and harder
to justify. Trident submarines no longer need to take that extra
precaution against Soviet nuclear forces. They can now surface on a
regular basis with less danger of detection or attack. They can also
receive more complicated messages through very low frequency (VLF)
radiowaves or lengthier messages through satellite systems, if it can
be done more cheaply.
During the 103rd Congress, I worked with Senator Nunn to include an
amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
1994 requiring a report by the Secretary of Defense on the benefits and
costs of continued operation of Project ELF. The report issued by DoD
was particularly disappointing because it basically argued that because
Project ELF may have had a purpose during the Cold War, it should
continue to operate after the Cold War as part of the complete
complement of command and control links configured for the Cold War.
Did Project ELF play a role in helping to minimize the Soviet threat?
Perhaps. Did it do so at risk to the community? Perhaps. Does it
continue to play a vital security role to the Nation? No.
In the fiscal year 1996 DoD authorization bill, the Senate cut
funding for the program, but again it was resurrected in conference.
I'd like to note here that Members in both Wisconsin and Michigan,
the states in which Project ELF is located, support terminating the
project. Also, former Commanders-in-Chief of Strategic Command, General
George Lee Butler and General Eugene E. Habiger, called for an end to
cold war nuclear weapons practices, of which Project ELF is a harrowing
reminder. Additionally, the Center for Defense Information called for
ending the program, noting that ``U.S. submarines operating under
present and foreseeable worldwide military conditions can receive all
necessary orders and instructions in timely fashion without need for
Project ELF.''
As I mentioned, this bill would terminate operation of Project ELF,
but would call for the Defense Department to maintain its
infrastructure. Should Project ELF become necessary for future military
action, DoD could quickly bring it back on-line. In essence, this bill
would save DoD some much-needed operations and maintenance funds
without degrading its capabilities.
Mr. President, I'd also like to briefly touch on the public health
and environmental concerns associated with Project ELF. For almost two
decades, we have received inconclusive data on this project's effects
on Wisconsin and Michigan residents. In 1984, a U.S. District Court
ordered that the project be shut down because the Navy paid inadequate
attention to the system's possible health effects and violated the
National Environmental Policy Act. Interestingly, that decision was
overturned because U.S. national security, at the time, prevailed over
public health and environmental concerns.
More than 40 medical studies point to a link between electromagnetic
pollution and cancer and abnormalities in both animal and plant
species. Metal fences near the two transmitters must be grounded to
avoid serious shock from the presence of high voltages.
Mr. President, last year, an international committee, convened by the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences urged the study of
electric and magnetic fields as a possible cause of cancer. Project ELF
produces the same kind of electric and magnetic fields cited by this
distinguished committee. The committee's announcement seems to confirm
the fears of many of my constituents.
And recently, I have heard from a number of dairy farmers who are
convinced that the stray voltage associated with ELF transmitters has
demonstrably reduced milk production.
In recent years, a coalition of fiscal conservatives and
environmentalists have targeted Project ELF because it both fiscally
and environmentally harmful. The coalition, which includes groups like
the Concord Coalition, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National

[[Page 874]]

Wildlife Federation, and Friends of the Earth, took aim at about 70
wasteful and dangerous programs. I hope we take their heed and end this
program.
Mr. President, this bill achieves two vital goals of many of my
colleagues here. It terminates a wasteful and unnecessary Cold War era
program, while allowing the Pentagon to address its readiness
shortfalls. This is a win-win situation and I hope my colleagues will
support this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF OPERATION OF THE EXTREMELY LOW
FREQUENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM.

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Wyden, and Mr.
Johnson):
S. 129. A bill to terminate the F/A-18E/F aircraft program; to the
Committee on Armed Services.

termination of the f/a-18E/F aircraft program

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to again introduce
legislation terminating the U.S. Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Program.
I am pleased to be joined again by Senator Lautenberg and Senator Wyden
on this important legislation.
Mr. President, given the Pentagon's self-reported readiness crisis, I
have serious doubts as to whether we can continue funding this costly
program while it fails to live up to expectations and continues to
experience highly visible problems.
In just the past year, we've been told that the program-threatening
wing drop problem is solved, but maybe not completely. We've also
learned that program officials may not have been exactly forthright in
letting Pentagon superiors in on the seriousness of that problem. We've
learned that the Super Hornet doesn't meet all of the performance
standards expected of it. And most recently, we've learned that cracks
in the aircraft's engines have forced the Navy to approach another
contractor.
This, Mr. President, should not be the track record of the plane that
the Navy called the ``future of naval aviation.'' In fact, this history
more closely resembles the previously-canceled A-12 attack plane. And I
know that neither the Pentagon nor the Congress wants another debacle
like the A-12.
Mr. President, I began this debate over the Super Hornet in 1997 on
the basis of the 1996 General Accounting Office report ``Navy Aviation:
F/A-18E/F Will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement at High Cost.''
In this report, GAO studied the rationale and need for the F/A-18E/F in
order to determine whether continued development of the aircraft is the
most cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy's tactical
aircraft fleet. GAO concluded that the marginal improvements of the F/
A-18E/F are far outweighed by the high cost of the program.
Since that time, I have offered numerous pieces of legislation that
run the gamut from outright termination of the program to continued
oversight of it. I asked GAO for a follow-up review. I have even asked
DoD's Inspector General to investigate various aspects of the program,
including testing evaluation. The one constant, however, has been the
program's continuing disappointments.
Mr. President, as we have all heard by now, wing drop causes the
aircraft to rock back and forth when it is flying at altitudes and
speeds at which air-to-air combat maneuvers are expected to occur.
What really disturbs me about wing drop is that almost a year and a
half went by after the discovery of the problem before the Office of
the Secretary of Defense acknowledged the problem. The Pentagon's
ignorance is caused either by shamefully poor communication or the
withholding of program information by the Navy. For that reason, I have
asked the DoD Inspector General to take a look at the wing drop fiasco.
Mr. President, the Navy's Super Hornet test team discovered the wing
drop problem in March, 1996. In October of that year, the Navy rated it
a priority problem. On February 5, 1997, wing drop was placed on an
official deficiency report. In that report, the Navy classified wing
drop as a **1 deficiency. In other words, one that will cause aircraft
control loss, equipment destruction, or injury. This is the most
serious category that the Navy assigns to program deficiencies. In the
same report, the Super Hornet's test director stated that wing drop,
``will prevent or severely restrict the performance of air-to-air
tracking tasks during air-to-air combat maneuvering. Therefore, the
operational effectiveness will be compromised.'' On March 12, 1997, the
test team characterized the problem as being ``an unacceptable
deficiency''.
Two weeks later, the Navy's Defense Acquisition Board met with the
test team, which failed to mention the wing drop problem at all.
Following that meeting, Secretary Cohen approved the group's
recommendation to spend 1.9 billion dollars for the first dozen Super
Hornets.
In November, 1997, the assistant secretary of Defense reportedly
first informed the Navy Secretary of the wing drop problem. In
December, the problem was moved to the program's high-risk category. It
should also be noted that wing drop was considered by the Navy and the
contractor, Boeing, to be the most challenging technical risk to the
program at that time. This past February 4, Secretary Cohen stated
unequivocally that the program would ``not go forward until wing drop
is corrected.'' A month later, a Navy blue ribbon panel reported that
the Navy does ``not have a good understanding'' of wing drop and that
the current porous wing fold fix is ``not a solution''. In May,
Secretary Cohen released funds for the second round of production
aircraft. Through it all, the Pentagon apparently didn't think wing
drop was significant enough to warrant full disclosure.
Following the release of the 1998 GAO report and reports of the wing
drop fiasco, I asked the Secretary to document the wing drop problem.
Specifically, I asked Secretary Cohen questions on who knew of the
problem and when they knew it.
In April, I received the Secretary's disappointing response. The
essence of his answers to my questions is that wing drop was not a
significant enough issue to warrant disclosure to the Defense
Acquisition Board before its decision to recommend production of the
first lot of aircraft.
Mr. President, given the Navy's classification of wing drop, the test
director's assessment of the mission impact, and the significant
efforts that were underway to resolve the problem, the Navy's failure
to discuss the wing drop problem with DoD officials responsible for
making the decision on whether to proceed into production of the
initial Super Hornets reflects, in my view, questionable judgement at
best and underscores the need for continued DoD and congressional
oversight of the Super Hornet's development and production program.
One final point, Mr. President. It should be made clear that DoD and
the Navy did not begin openly discussing wing drop until after the
assistant secretary John Douglass' November 20, 1997, memo on the issue
to Navy Secretary John Dalton appeared in the press. In fact, during a
February, 1998, hearing before the House National Security Committee's
Research and Development Subcommittee, Chairman Curt Weldon voiced his
displeasure with having to learn about the Super Hornet's wing drop
problem through the media rather than from the Navy. If the chairman of
the subcommittee responsible for the development of the Super Hornet
has to rely on the media to learn about one of the Defense Department's
costliest programs, then I think it's fairly reliable that all the
information was not made available.

[[Page 875]]

Mr. President, the Navy has based the need for development and
procurement of the F/A-18E/F on existing or projected operational
deficiencies of the F/A-18C/D Hornet in the following key areas: strike
range, carrier recovery payload and survivability. In addition, the
Navy notes limitations of current Hornets with respect to avionics
growth space and payload capacity.
The Navy and Boeing call these points the ``five pillars'' of the
Super Hornet program. The most recent GAO report and my review of the
program show that the five pillars are weak and crumbling.
GAO identifies problems with the Super Hornet in each of these five
areas. Meanwhile, the Navy's responses to the criticisms are at odds
with their own arguments in favor of the program. In the 1998 report,
GAO identified problems that may diminish the effectiveness of the
plane's survivability improvements, problems that could degrade engine
performance and service life, and dangerous weapons separation problems
that require additional testing.
In July, 1997, the Navy's Program Risk Advisory Board stated that
``operational testing may determine that the aircraft is not
operationally effective or suitable.'' That December, the board
reversed its position and said the E/F is potentially operationally
effective and suitable, but also reiterated its concerns with certain
systems that are supposed to make the Super Hornet superior to the
Hornet.
These are not glowing reviews for any program, but are downright
awful for an aircraft program slated to cost upwards of $100 billion.
We should not gamble with our pilots' lives and more than 100 billion
taxpayer dollars. These stakes are too high.
Also in the report, GAO asserted the Super Hornet doesn't accelerate
or maneuver as well as the Hornet. DoD readily agrees, but maintains
that this is an acceptable trade-off for other capabilities. I wonder
if a pilot under fire would agree.
It gets better, Mr. President. The publication, Inside the Pentagon,
reported last February that the Navy will not hold the Super Hornet to
strict performance specifications in three areas. It published a copy
of a memo written by Rear Admiral Dennis McGinn, the Navy's officer in
charge of air warfare programs, that ordered the E/F would not be
strictly held to performance specifications in turning, climbing and
maneuvering.
Everyone can agree that these are important performance criteria for
a state-of-the-art fighter and attack plane. It turns out that this
memo was sent to the E/F test team after the team concluded that the
Super Hornet was, in some cases, not as proficient in turning or
accelerating as the Hornet. The test team concluded that the single-
seat E, when outfitted with a relatively light load of air-to-air
missiles, is ``slightly less'' capable than the single-seat C in terms
of instantaneous turn performance, sustained turn performance, and in
some cases, of unloaded acceleration. Interestingly enough, the C
models used in the comparisons were not even the most advanced C's
available. These deficiencies haven't improved since then.
GAO also said that the Navy board's program officials came to ``the
realization that the F/A-18E/F may not be as capable in a number of
operational performance areas as the most recently procured `C' model
aircraft that are equipped with an enhanced performance engine.''
Mr. President, the Navy's own test team has stated that the new plane
does not perform as well as the reliable version currently in use in
key performance areas. But this isn't enough. The Navy now says these
performance criteria are not important. Mr. President, this is
shameful.
In its 1996 report, GAO reached a number of conclusions. It found
that the Super Hornet offers only marginal improvements over the
Hornet, and that these are far outweighed by the high cost. It found
that the Hornet can be modified to meet every capacity the Super Hornet
is intended to fulfill. And GAO found that the Defense Department could
save $17 billion by purchasing additional improved Hornets instead of
Super Hornets. The Congressional Budget Office updated that cost
savings last year to $15 billion, still a princely sum, especially
given DoD's hopes of increasing defense spending by roughly that amount
each year for the next six years.
The report also addressed other purported improvements of the Super
Hornet over the Hornet. GAO concluded that the reported operational
deficiencies of the C/D that the Navy cited to justify the E/F either
have not materialized as projected or that such deficiencies can be
corrected with nonstructural changes to the current C/D and additional
upgrades made which would further improve its capabilities.
GAO even rebutted all of the claims of the Hornet's disadvantages.
The report concluded that the Navy's F/A-18 strike range requirements
can be met by either the E/F or the C/D, and that the E/F's increased
range is achieved at the expense of its aerial combat performance. It
notes that even with increased range, both aircraft will still require
aerial refueling for low-altitude missions.
Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, the E/F's increased strike
range is achieved at the expense of the aircraft's aerial combat
performance. This is shown by its sustained turn rate, maneuvering, and
acceleration--critical components of its ability to maneuver in either
offensive or defensive modes.
GAO also disputes the Navy's contention that the C/D cannot carry 480
gallon external fuel tanks. Next, the deficiency in carrier recovery
payload which the Navy anticipated for the F/ A-18C simply has not
materialized. GAO notes that while it is not necessary, upgrading F/A-
18C's with stronger landing gear could allow them to recover carrier
payloads of more than 10,000 pounds, greater than the 9,000 pounds
sought for the F/A-18E/F.
Additional improvements have been made or are planned for the Hornet
to enhance its survivability including improvements to reduce its radar
detectability, while survivability improvements of the Super Hornet are
questionable. For example, because the Super Hornet will be carrying
weapons and fuel externally, the radar signature reduction improvements
derived from the structural design of the aircraft will be diminished
and will only help the aircraft penetrate slightly deeper than the
Hornet into an integrated defensive system before being detected.
Mr. President, as we discuss survivability, we should recall the
outstanding performance of the Hornet in the Gulf War a few years ago.
By the Navy's own account, the C/D performed extraordinarily well, and,
in the Navy's own words, experienced ``unprecedented survivability.''
The Navy predicted that by the mid-1990's the Hornet would not have
growth space to accommodate additional new weapons and systems under
development. Specifically, the Navy predicted that by fiscal year 1996,
C/D's would only have 0.2 cubic feet of space available for future
avionics growth; however, 5.3 cubic feet of available space have been
identified for future system growth. Furthermore, technological
advancements such as miniaturization, modularity and consolidation may
result in additional growth space for future avionics.
Also, while the Super Hornet will provide some increase in air-to-air
capability by carrying two extra missiles, it will not increase its
ability to carry the heavier, precision-guided, air-to-ground weapons
that are capable of hitting fixed and mobile hard targets nor to
deliver heavier standoff weapons that will be used to increase aircraft
survivability.
So we have a plane that doesn't really do the things the Navy said it
would do, and in some cases does not perform as well as the older
version, but we're supposed to pay probably three times more for the
Super Hornet.
Mr. President, it's time we ended this fiasco once and for all. The
program already costs tens of billions of dollars more than initial
Navy estimates and costs continues to rise. Additionally, we must
compare the estimated $73 million cost per plane for the Super Hornet
to the $28 million per plane for the Hornet. And, as I have mentioned,

[[Page 876]]

some projections put the total program cost of the F/A-18E/F at close
to $100 billion.
Mr. President, let me briefly highlight the ballooning cost of the
Super Hornet. Just a few years ago, the Navy, using overstated
assumptions about the total number of planes procured and an estimated
annual production rate of 72 aircraft per year, calculated a unit
recurring flyaway cost of $44 million. However, using GAO's more
realistic assumptions of the procurement of 660 aircraft by the Navy,
at a production rate of 36 aircraft per year, the unit recurring
flyaway cost of the Super Hornet ballooned to $53 million. Last year,
the Navy used more realistic procurement figures of 548 aircraft with
annual production at 36 aircraft per year, which brought the unit cost
to $73 million. And I am fairly safe in assuming this figure will only
rise. This is compared to the $28 million unit recurring flyaway cost
for the Hornet. CBO estimates that this cost difference in unit
recurring flyaway would result in a savings of almost $15 billion if
the Navy were to procure the Hornets rather than the Super Hornets.
Mr. President, given the enormous cost and marginal improvement in
operational capabilities the Super Hornet would provide, it seems that
the justification for it just isn't there. Proceeding with the Super
Hornet program may not be the most cost-effective approach to
modernizing the Navy's tactical aircraft fleet. In the short term, the
Navy can continue to procure the Hornet aircraft, while upgrading it to
improve further its operational capabilities. For the long term, the
Navy can look toward the next generation strike fighter, the JSF, which
will provide more operational capability at far less cost than the
Super Hornet.
Mr. President, by all accounts the F/A-18C/D is a top-quality
aircraft that has served the Navy well over the last decade, and could
be modified to meet every capacity the E/F is intended to fulfill over
the course of the next decade at a substantially lower cost.
Therefore, considering the Department of Defense has clearly
overextended itself in terms of supporting three major multirole
fighter programs, it is clear that we must discontinue the Super Hornet
program before the American taxpayer is asked to fund yet another
unnecessary, flawed multi-billion dollar program.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 129

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF THE F/A-18E/F AIRCRAFT PROGRAM.

(a) Termination of Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall
terminate the F/A-18E/F aircraft program.
(b) Payment of Termination Costs.--Funds available for
procurement and for research, development, test, and
evaluation that are available on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act for obligation for the F/A-18E/F
aircraft program may be obligated for that program only for
payment of the costs associated with the termination of the
program.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 130. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the
dependent care credit refundable, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 131. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
deduction from gross income for home care and adult day and respite
care expenses of individual taxpayers with respect to a dependent of
the taxpayer who suffers from Alzheimer's disease or related organic
brain disorders; to the Committee on Finance.

long term care assistance

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, long term care is an issue that continues
to tug at Congress and this country. In 1995 the federal and state
governments spent $23 billion on long term care and another $21 billion
for home care. And it is estimated that those in need of long-term care
will grow from 7.3 million today to 10-14 million by 2020--potentially
a doubling of those in need.
The appropriate care for an individual should be an issue that is
made by that individual and their loved ones. But we all know the truth
is that in many cases it comes down to the financial realities of the
family. For many people, remaining at home is their choice. It allows
them to remain with their loved ones in familiar surroundings. We need
to do more to assist these people and their families if this is their
choice.
Toward that end I am reintroducing a bill that provides a tax credit
for families caring for a relative who suffers from Alzheimer's
disease. When I first came to Congress 20 years ago, not a single piece
of legislation devoted to Alzheimer's disease had even been introduced.
We have come along way since then, as today `Alzheimer's' is a
household word. It is also the most expensive uninsured illness in
America. Alzheimer's will consume more of our national wealth-
approximately $1.75 trillion--than all other illnesses except cancer
and heart disease. And the number of those affected by this disease is
rising and will continue to rise dramatically, from 4 million today to
over 14 million by the middle of the 21st century.
As staggering as these numbers are, they pale in comparison to the
emotional costs this disease places on the family. We can help lessen
that cost by providing some relief to Alzheimer's patients and their
families. My bill would allow families to deduct the cost of home care
and adult day and respite care provided to a dependent suffering from
Alzheimer's disease.
My second bill will strengthen the dependent care tax credit and
restore Congress' original intent to provide the greatest benefit of
the tax credit to low-income taxpayers. This bill expands the dependent
care tax credit, makes it applicable for respite care expenses and
makes it refundable.
As more and more women enter the workforce combined with the aging of
our population, we are continuing to see an increased need for both
child and elder care. Expenses incurred for this care can place a large
burden on a family's finances. The cost of full time child care can
range from $4,000 to $10,000. The cost of nursing home care is in
excess of $40,000 a year. Managing these costs is difficult for many
families, but is exceptionally burdensome for those in lower income
brackets.
In 1976, the dependent care tax credit was created to help low- and
moderate-income families alleviate the burden of employment-related
dependent care. We haven't changed the DCTC since it was created 23
years ago and in fact, in the 1986 Tax Reform Act we indexed all the
basic provisions of the tax code that determine tax liability except
for DCTC. We need to make the credit relevant by updating it to reflect
today's world. My legislation will do that by indexing the credit to
inflation and making it refundable so that those who do not reach the
tax thresholds will still receive assistance. It also raises the DCTC
sliding scale from 30 to 50 percent of work-related dependent care
expenditures for families earning $15,000 or less. The scale would then
be reduced by 1 percentage point for each additional $1,000 of income,
down to a credit of 20 percent for persons earning $45,000 or more.
In order to assist those who care for loved ones at home, the bill
also expands the definition of dependent care to include respite care,
thereby offering relief from this additional expense. A respite care
credit would be allowed for up to $1,200 for one qualifying dependent
care and $2,400 for two qualifying dependents.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these two bills that
will provide assistance to families that wish to provide long term care
to their loved ones at home.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 132. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
comprehensive pension protection for women; to the Committee on
Finance.

women's pension protection act of 1999

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to improve
the

[[Page 877]]

retirement security of women. Even with the increasing number of women
entering the workforce, only 39 percent of part-time and full-time
working women are covered by a pension plan.
While women have come a long way, even now a woman makes only 75
cents for every dollar a man makes--and older women are payed even
less: 66 cents for every dollar earned by a 55-year-old man. In
addition, as we all know, women have spent more time outside the
workforce because they have spent more time inside the household
raising families. These two factors help explain why older women are
twice as likely as older men to be poor or near poor; with nearly 40
percent of older women who live alone live in or near poverty.
This bill makes a number of changes in current pension law including:
helping to ensure that pension benefits earned during a marriage are
considered and divided fairly in the event of divorce; closing
loopholes in the civil service and railroad retirement laws that have
resulted in the loss of pension benefits for widows and ex-spouses of
beneficiaries in such plans and increases the amount of information
available by establishing a pension ``hotline'' at the Department of
Labor.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
S. 134. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study
whether the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore should be protected as a
wilderness area; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Gaylord Nelson apostle islands stewardship act of 1999

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Gaylord
Nelson Apostle Islands Stewardship Act of 1999.'' I am pleased to have
the senior Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) join me as an original
cosponsor of this legislation.
Many outside Wisconsin may not know that, in addition to founding
Earth Day, Senator Nelson was also the primary sponsor of the Apostle
Islands National Lakeshore Act. That act, which passed in 1970,
protects one of Northern Wisconsin's most beautiful areas, at which I
spend my vacation with my family every year.
Though Senator Nelson has received many awards, I know that among his
proudest accomplishments are those bills he crafted which have produced
real and lasting change in preserving America's lands, such as the
Apostle Islands.
The Apostle Islands National Lakshore includes 21 forested islands
and 12 miles of pristine shoreline which are among the Great Lakes'
most spectacular scenery. Centuries of wave action, freezing, and
thawing have sculpted the shorelines, and nature has carved intricate
caves into the sandstone which forms the islands. Delicate arches,
vaulted chambers, and hidden passageways honeycomb cliffs on the north
shore of Devils Island, Swallow Point on Sand Island, and northeast of
Cornucopia on the mainland. The Apostle Islands National Lakeshore
includes more lighthouses than any other coastline of similar size in
the United States, and is home to diverse wildlife including: black
bear, bald eagles and deer. It is an important recreational area as
well. Its campgrounds and acres of forest, make the Apostles a favorite
destination for hikers, sailors, kayakers, and bikers. The Lakeshore
also includes the underwater lakebed as well, and scuba divers register
with the National Park Service to view the area's underwater resources.
Unfortunately, the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore finds itself,
nearly 29 years later, with significant financial and legal resource
needs, as do many of the lands managed by the National Park Service. If
we are to be true stewards of America's public lands, we need to be
willing to make necessary financial investments and management
improvements when they are warranted. I introduce this legislation in
an attempt to resolve the unfinished business that remains at the
Lakeshore, as well as to renew our Nation's commitment to this
beautiful place.
Mr. President, the legislation has three major sections. First, it
authorizes the Park Service to conduct a wilderness suitability study
of the Lakeshore as required by the Wilderness Act.
This study is needed to ensure that we have the appropriate level of
management at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. The Wilderness
Act and the National Park Service policies require the Park Service to
conduct an evaluation of the lands it manages for possible inclusion in
the National Wilderness system. The study would result in a
recommendation to Congress about whether any of the federally-owned
lands currently within the Lakeshore still retain the characteristics
that would make them suitable to be legally designated as wilderness.
If Congress found the study indicated that some of the federal lands
within the Lakeshore were in need of legal wilderness status, Congress
would have to subsequently pass legislation to confer such status.
We need this study, Mr. President, because 28 years have passed and
it is time to determine the proper level of management for the
Lakeshore. During the General Management Planning Process for the
Lakeshore, which was completed nearly a decade ago in 1989, the need
for a formal wilderness study was identified. Although a wilderness
study has been identified as a high priority by the Lakeshore, it has
never been funded.
Since 1989, most of the Lakeshore, roughly 80 percent of the acreage,
is being managed by the Park Service as if it were federally designated
wilderness. As a protective measure, all lands which might be suitable
for wilderness designation were zoned to protect any wilderness
characteristics they may have pending completion of the study. However,
we may be managing lands as wilderness in the Lakeshore that might, due
to use patterns, no longer be suitable for wilderness designation.
Correspondingly, some land area may have become more ecologically
sensitive and may need additional legal protection.
Second, this legislation also directs the Park Service to protect the
historic Raspberry Island and Outer Island lighthouses. The bill
authorizes $3.9 million for bluff stabilization and other necessary
actions. There are six lighthouses in the Apostle Island National
Lakeshore--Sand Island, Devil's Island, Raspberry Island, Outer Island,
Long Island and Michigan Island. Engineering studies completed for the
National Park Service have determined that several of these lighthouses
are in danger of structural damage due to the continued erosion of the
red clay banks upon which they were built. The situations at Outer
Island and Raspberry Island, the two which this legislation addresses,
were determined to be in the most jeopardy.
Last year, as part of the 1999 Interior Appropriations Bill, $215,000
was provided to the Apostle Island National Seashore for the
rehabilitation of the historic lighthouses. While the funding was a
commendable first step, it will allow only for preliminary engineering
assessments of how to best protect these landmarks. We must go further
to ensure that these precious and fragile beacons do not simply crumble
into Lake Superior.
The Raspberry Island situation is most critical. The Raspberry Island
lighthouse was completed in 1863 to make the west channel through the
Apostle Islands. The original light was a rectangular frame structure
topped by a square tower that held a lens 40 feet above the ground.
A fog signal building was added to Raspberry Island in 1902. The red
brick structure housed a ten-inch steam whistle and a hoisting engine
for a tramway. The need for additional personnel at the station led to
a redesign of the lighthouse building in 1906-07. The structure was
converted to a duplex, housing the keeper and his family in the east
half, with the two assistant keepers sharing the west half. A 23-
kilowatt, diesel-driven electric generator was installed at the station
in 1928. The light was automated in 1947 and then moved to a metal
tower in front of the fog signal building in 1952.

[[Page 878]]

Raspberry Island light is now the most frequently visited of Apostle
Islands National Lakeshore's lighthouses. Recent erosion is threatening
the access tram and the fog signal building.
The Outer Island light station was built in 1874 on a red clay bluff
40 feet above Lake Superior. The lighthouse tower stands 90 feet high
and the watchroom is encircled by an outside walkway and topped by the
lantern. As its name implies, the light is stationed on the outermost
island of the Apostle archipelago, fully exposed to Lake Superior's
gale-force storms.
Historic architects have indicated to the Park Service that Outer
Island lighthouse may already be suffering some structural damage due
to its location on the bluff and the situation would be much worse if
Lake Superior were exceedingly high.
Engineers believe that preservation of these structures requires
protection of the bluff beneath the lighthouses, stabilization of the
banks, and dewatering of the area immediately shoreward of the bluffs.
Although the projects have in the past been included within the Park
Service-wide construction priorities, they have never been funded. The
specific authorization and funding contained in this legislation is
essential if the projects are ever to receive the attention they so
urgently deserve.
In keeping with my belief that progress toward a balanced budget
should be maintained, I am proposing that the $4.1 million in
authorized spending for the Apostle Islands contained in this
legislation be offset by rescinding $10 million in unspent funds from
$40 million in funds carried over for the Department of Energy's Clean
Coal Technology Program in FY 99 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. The
Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer $5.9 million
above the money that it needs to take actions at the Apostle Islands
back to the Treasury.
Mr. President, I am concerned that we have set aside such a large
amount of money for the Clean Coal Technology Program, which the
program has been unable to spend, when we have acute appropriations
needs at places like the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.
Finally, this legislation adds language to the act which created the
Lakeshore allowing the Park Service to enter into cooperative
agreements with state, tribal, local governments, universities or other
non-profit entities to enlist their assistance in managing the
Lakeshore. Some parks have specific language in the act which created
the park allowing them to enter into such agreements. Parks have used
them for activities such as research, historic preservation, and
emergency services. Apostle Islands currently does not have this
authority, which this legislation adds.
Other National Park lands and lands which are managed by the Park
Service, such as the Lakeshore, have such authority. Adding that
authority to the Lakeshore will be a way to make Lakeshore management
resources go farther. The Park Service has the opportunity to carry out
joint projects with other partners which could contribute to the
management of the Lakeshore including: state, local, and tribal
governments, universities, and non-profit groups. Such endeavors would
have both scientific management and fiscal benefits. In the past, the
Lakeshore has had to forego these opportunities because the specific
authority is absent under current law.
In his 1969 book on the environment, entitled America's Last Chance,
Senator Nelson issued a political challenge:

I have come to the conclusion that the number one domestic
problem facing this country is the threatened destruction of
our natural resources and the disaster which would confront
mankind should such destruction occur. There is a real
question as to whether the nation, which has spent some two
hundred years developing an intricate system of local, State
and Federal Government to deal with the public's problems,
will be bold, imaginative and flexible enough to meet this
supreme test.

Though the Apostle Islands are not, because of former Senator
Nelson's efforts, ``threatened with destruction,'' they are a fitting
place for us to rise to this challenge. I believe that Senator Nelson
meant two things by his challenge. Not only did he mean that government
must act immediately and decisively to protect resources in crisis, but
he also meant that government must be responsible and flexible enough
to remain committed to the protection of the areas we wisely seek to
preserve under our laws.
Thus, Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this legislation as a
renewal of the federal government's commitment to the Apostle Islands
National Lakeshore. I look forward to working with my colleagues on
this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 134

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 ``Gaylord Nelson Apostle
Islands Stewardship Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. GAYLORD NELSON APOSTLE ISLANDS.

(a) Declarations.--Congress declares that--
(1) the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is a national
and a Wisconsin treasure;
(2) the State of Wisconsin is particularly indebted to
former Senator Gaylord Nelson for his leadership in the
creation of the Lakeshore;
(3) after more than 28 years of enjoyment, some issues
critical to maintaining the overall ecological, recreational,
and cultural vision of the Lakeshore need additional
attention;
(4) the general management planning process for the
Lakeshore has identified a need for a formal wilderness
study;
(5) all land within the Lakeshore that might be suitable
for designation as wilderness are zoned and managed to
protect wilderness characteristics pending completion of such
a study;
(6) several historic lighthouses within the Lakeshore are
in danger of structural damage due to severe erosion;
(7) the Secretary of the Interior has been unable to take
full advantage of cooperative agreements with Federal, State,
local, and tribal governmental agencies, institutions of
higher education, and other nonprofit organizations that
could assist the National Park Service by contributing to the
management of the Lakeshore;
(8) because of competing needs in other units of the
National Park System, the standard authorizing and budgetary
process has not resulted in updated legislative authority and
necessary funding for improvements to the Lakeshore; and
(9) the need for improvements to the Lakeshore and
completion of a wilderness study should be accorded a high
priority among National Park Service activities.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Lakeshore.--The term ``Lakeshore'' means the Apostle
Islands National Lakeshore.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National
Park Service.
(c) Wilderness Study.--In fulfillment of the
responsibilities of the Secretary under the Wilderness Act
(16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) and of applicable agency policy, the
Secretary shall evaluate areas of land within the Lakeshore
for inclusion in the National Wilderness System.
(d) Apostle Islands Lighthouses.--The Secretary shall
undertake appropriate action (including protection of the
bluff toe beneath the lighthouses, stabilization of the bank
face, and dewatering of the area immediately shoreward of the
bluffs) to protect the lighthouse structures at Raspberry
Lighthouse and Outer Island Lighthouse on the Lakeshore.
(e) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 6 of Public Law 91-424
(16 U.S.C. 460w-5) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Sec. 6. The lakeshore'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT.

``(a) In General.--The lakeshore''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into
a cooperative agreement with a Federal, State, tribal, or
local government agency or a nonprofit private entity if the
Secretary determines that a cooperative agreement would be
beneficial in carrying out section 7.''.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated--
(1) $200,000 to carry out subsection (c); and
(2) $3,900,000 to carry out subsection (d).
(g) Funding.--
(1) In general.--Of the funds made available under the
heading ``clean coal technology'' under the heading
``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'' for obligation in prior years, in
addition to the funds deferred under the heading ``clean coal
technology'' under the

[[Page 879]]

heading ``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'' under section 101(e) of
division A of Public Law 105-277--
(A) $5,000,000 shall not be available until October 1,
2000; and
(B) $5,000,000 shall not be available until October 1,
2001.
(2) Ongoing projects.--Funds made available in previous
appropriations Acts shall be available for any ongoing
project regardless of the separate request for proposal under
which the project was selected.
(3) Transfer of funds.--In addition to any amounts made
available under subsection (f), amounts made available under
paragraph (1) shall be transferred to the Secretary for use
in carrying out subsections (c) and (d).
(4) Unexpended balance.--Any balance of funds transferred
under paragraph (3) that remain unexpended at the end of
fiscal year 1999 shall be returned to the Treasury.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Levin,
Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr.
Baucus):
S. 136, A bill to provide for teacher excellence and classroom help;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

teacher excellence act of 1999

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, states and local communities are making
significant progress toward improving their public schools. Almost
every state has developed challenging academic standards for all
students to meet--and they are holding schools accountable for results.
But just setting standards isn't enough. Schools and communities have
to do more to ensure improved student achievement. Schools must have
small classes, particularly in the early grades. They must have strong
parent involvement. They must have safe, modern facilities with up-to-
date technology. They must have high-quality after-school opportunities
for children who need extra help. They must have well-trained teachers
in the classroom who keep up with current developments in their field
and the best teaching practices.
Last year, with broad bipartisan support, Congress made substantial
investments in the nation's public schools to reduce class size, expand
after-school programs, and improve the initial training of teachers.
However, more needs to be done.
Education must continue to be a top priority in the new Congress. We
must do more to meet the needs of public schools, families, and
children, so that all children have an opportunity to attend good
schools. We need to do more to help communities modernize their
schools, reduce class sizes, especially in grades 1-3, improve the
quality of the nation's teachers, and expand after-school programs.
These steps are urgently needed to help communities address the
serious problems of rising student enrollments, overcrowded classrooms,
dilapidated schools, teacher shortages, underqualified teachers, high
turnover rates of teachers, and lack of after-school programs. These
are real problems that deserve real solutions.
The needs of families across the nation should not be ignored. They
want the federal government to offer a helping hand in improving public
schools.
This year, the nation has set a new record for elementary and
secondary student enrollment. The figure has reached an all-time high
of 53 million students--500,000 more students than last year.
Serious teacher shortages are being caused by rising student
enrollments, and also by the growing number of teacher retirements. The
nation's public schools will need to hire 2.2 million teachers over the
next ten years, just to hold their own. If we don't act now, the need
for more teachers will put even greater pressure on school districts to
lower their standards and hire unqualified teachers.
Also, too many teachers leave within the first three years of
teaching--including 30-50% of teachers in urban areas--because they
don't get the support and mentoring they need to succeed. Veteran
teachers and principals need more and better opportunities for
professional development to enhance their knowledge and skills, to
integrate technology into the curriculum, and to help children meet
high standards.
We must fulfill last year's commitment to help communities hire
100,000 new teachers, in order to reduce class size. But it is equally
important that we help communities recruit promising teacher
candidates, provide new teachers with trained mentors who will help
them succeed in the classroom, and give current teachers the on-going
training they need to stay abreast of modern technologies and new
research.
Many communities are working hard to attract, keep, and support good
teachers--and often they're succeeding.
The North Carolina Teaching Fellows Program has recruited 3,600 high-
ability high school graduates to go into teaching. The students agree
to teach for four years in the state's public schools in exchange for a
four-year college scholarship. North Carolina principals report that
the performance of the Fellows far exceeds other new teachers.
In Chicago, a program called the Golden Apple Scholars of Illinois
recruits promising young men and women into the profession by selecting
them during their junior year of high school, then mentoring them
through the rest of high school, college, and five years of actual
teaching. 60 Golden Apple scholars enter the teaching field each year,
and 90 percent of them stay in the classroom.
Colorado State University's Project Promise recruits prospective
teachers from fields such as law, geology, chemistry, stock trading and
medicine. Current teachers mentor graduates in their first two years of
teaching. More than 90 percent of the recruits enter the field, and 80
percent stay for at least five years.
New York City's Mentor Teacher Internship Program has increased the
retention of new teachers. In Montana, only 4 percent of new teachers
in mentoring programs left after their first year of teaching, compared
with 28 percent of teachers without mentoring programs.
New York City's District 2 has made professional development the
central component for improving schools. They believe that student
learning will increase as the knowledge of educators grows--and it's
working. In 1996, student math scores were second in the city.
Massachusetts has invested $60 million in the Teacher Quality
Endowment Fund to launch the 12-to-62 Plan for Strengthening
Massachusetts Future Teaching Force. The plan being developed is a
comprehensive effort to improve recruitment, retention, and
professional development of teachers throughout their careers.
Congress should build on and support these successful efforts across
the country to ensure that the nation's teaching force is strong and
successful in the years ahead.
The Teacher Excellence Act we are introducing will invest $1.2
billion in fiscal year 2000 to improve the recruitment, retention, and
on-going professional development of the nation's teachers. The
proposal will provide states and local school districts with the
support they need to recruit excellent teacher candidates, to retain
and support promising beginning teachers, and to provide veteran
teachers and principals with the on-going professional development they
need to help all children meet high standards of achievement.
States will receive grants through the current Title I or Title II
formula, whichever is greater. They will use 20 percent of the funding
to provide scholarships to prospective teachers--whether they are high
school graduates, professionals who want to make a career change, or
paraprofessionals who want to become fully certified as teachers.
Scholarship recipients must agree to teach for at least 3 years after
completion of the teaching degree and teach in a high-need school
district or in a high-need subject.
At least 70 percent of the funds must go to local school districts on
a competitive basis to implement, improve or expand high-quality
programs for beginning teachers, including mentoring and internship
programs, and provide high-quality professional development for
principals and veteran teachers. Our goal is to ensure that

[[Page 880]]

every child has the opportunity to meet high state standards. States
must also set additional eligibility criteria, including the poverty
rate of the school district; the need for support based on low student
achievement and low teacher retention rates; and the need for upgrading
the knowledge and skills of veteran teachers in high-priority content
areas. Other criteria include the need to help students with
disabilities and limited English proficiency. States must target grants
to school districts with the highest needs and ensure a fair
distribution of grants among school districts serving urban and rural
areas.
In addition to providing states and communities with the support they
need to ensure that there is a qualified, well-trained teacher in every
classroom, we must also hold states and communities accountable for
results--and for making the changes that will achieve those results.
Currently, teachers are often assigned subjects in which they have no
training or experience. Nearly one-fourth of all secondary school
teachers do not have even a college minor in their main teaching field,
let alone a college major. This fact is true for more than 50 percent
of math teachers. 56 percent of high school students taking a physical
science course are taught by out-of-field teachers, as are 27 percent
of those taking mathematics, and 21 percent of those taking English.
The proportions are much higher in high-poverty schools. In schools
with the highest minority enrollments, students have less than a 50
percent chance of having science or math teachers who hold a license
and a degree in the field they teach.
Because of teacher shortages caused by rising enrollments and teacher
retirements, communities must often lower their standards and hire
unqualified teachers. Currently, communities across the country have
hired 50,000 unqualified teachers in order to address such shortages.
More than 12 percent of newly hired teachers have no training and 15
percent of new teachers enter teaching without meeting state standards.
Under the Teacher Excellence Act, states and communities will be held
accountable for reducing the number of emergency certified teachers and
out-of-field placements of teachers. As they work to improve
recruitment, retention, and professional development of teachers,
states and communities should also reduce these practices that
undermine efforts to help all students meet high standards. States will
be able to use up to 10 percent of the funds in order to meet these
accountability requirements.
In addition, the bill supports the full $300 million for funding of
Title II of the Higher Education Act to improve the initial preparation
of teachers. Also, current support for technology programs must include
a requirement for training teachers in how to use technologies
effectively to improve student learning.
We must do all we can to improve teacher quality across the country.
What teachers know and are able to teach are among the most important
influences on student achievement. Improving teacher quality is an
effective way to link high state standards to the classroom. We should
do all we can to ensure that every child has the opportunity to learn
from a qualified, well-trained teacher and to attend a school with a
well-trained principal.
______

By Mr. KYL:
S. 137. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal
the increase in tax on social security benefits; to the Committee on
Finance.

The Senior Citizens Income Tax Relief Act of 1999

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Senior Citizens
Income Tax Relief Act. This legislation would give seniors relief from
the Clinton Social Security tax increase of 1993. I introduced this
bill on August 5, 1993, the day this tax was first imposed on America's
senior citizens.
Senator Pete Domenici, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
recently predicted that the federal government would generate a budget
surplus of up to $700 billion over the next 10 years. He proposed that
roughly $600 billion of this surplus be used to fund a tax cut. I could
not agree more. I will be working with Senator Domenici and members of
the Senate on both sides of the aisle to ensure that there will be
sufficient room in this surplus for Social Security tax relief for
senior citizens.
Millions of America's senior citizens depend on Social Security as a
critical part of their retirement income. Having paid into the program
throughout their working lives, retirees count on the government to
meet its obligations under the Social Security contract. For many, the
security provided by this supplemental pension plan is the difference
between a happy and healthy retirement and one marked by uncertainty
and apprehension, particularly for the vast majority of seniors on
fixed incomes.
As part of his massive 1993 tax hike, President Clinton imposed a tax
increase on senior citizens, subjecting to taxation up to 85 percent of
the Social Security received by seniors with annual incomes of over
$34,000 and couples with over $44,000 in annual income.
This represents a 70 percent increase in the marginal tax rate for
these seniors. Factor in the government's ``Social Security Earnings
Limitation,'' and a senior's marginal tax rate can reach 88 percent--
twice the rate paid by millionaires.
An analysis of government-provided figures on the 1993 Social
Security tax increase finds that, at the end of 1998, America's seniors
have paid an extra $25 billion because of this tax hike, including $380
million from senior citizens in Arizona alone.
Mr. President, I want to make an additional important point. Despite
all the partisan demagoguery, the only attack on Social Security in
recent years has come from the administration and the other party in
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Not one Republican
supported this tax increase on Social Security benefits.
If the administration opposes any meaningful tax cut, the relief we
will be able to provide will be limited. It will be difficult, then, to
repeal the Social Security tax increase. This is why, in the 105th
Congress, I offered an amendment to ensure that we are able to expand
tax relief in the future, and why the first tax relief proposal I am
introducing in the 106th Congress will repeal President Clinton's 1993
Social Security tax increase.
______

By Mr. KYL:
S. 138. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
credit against income tax for expenses of attending elementary and
secondary schools and for contributions to charitable organizations
which provide scholarships for children to attend such schools; to the
Committee on Finance.

j-12 community participation act of 1999

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce an education proposal
that will increase parental and student choice, educational quality,
and school safety.
A colleague from the Arizona delegation, representative Matt Salmon,
is today introducing this proposal in the House of Representatives.
The ``K through 12 Community Participation Act'' would offer tax
credits to families and businesses of up to $250 annually for qualified
K through 12 education expenses or activities.
Over the last 30 years, Americans have steadily increased their
monetary commitment to education. Unfortunately, we have not seen a
corresponding improvement in the quality of the education our children
receive. Given our financial commitment, and the great importance of
education, these results are unacceptable.
Mr. President, I believe the problem is not how much money is spent,
but how it is spent, and by whom.
The K through 12 Community Participation Education Act addresses the
problem of falling education standards by giving families and
businesses a tax incentive to provide children with a higher quality
education through choice and competition.
The problem of declining education standards is illustrated by a 1998
report

[[Page 881]]

released by the Education and Workforce Committee of the House of
Representatives, Education at the Crossroads. This is the most
comprehensive review of federal education programs ever undertaken by
the United States Congress. It shows that the federal government's
response to the decline in American schools has been to build bigger
bureaucracies, not a better education system.
According to the report, there are more than 760 federal education
programs overseen by at least 39 federal agencies at a cost of $100
billion a year to taxpayers. These programs are overlapping and
duplicative.
For example, there are 63 separate (but similar) math and science
programs, 14 literacy programs, and 11 drug-education programs. Even
after accounting for recent streamlining efforts, the U.S. Department
of Education still requires over 48.6 million hours worth of paperwork
per year--this is the equivalent of 25,000 employees working full time.
States get at most seven percent of their total education funds from
the federal government, but most states report that roughly half of
their paperwork is imposed by federal education authorities.
The federal government spends tax dollars on closed captioning of
``educational'' programs such as ``Baywatch'' and Jerry Springer's
squalid daytime talk show.
With such a large number of programs funded by the federal
government, it's no wonder local school authorities feel the heavy hand
of Washington upon them.
And what are the nation's taxpayers getting for their money?
According to the report,
Around 40 percent of fourth graders cannot read; and 57 percent of
urban students score below their grade level.
Half of all students from urban school districts fail to graduate on
time, if at all.
U.S. 12th graders ranked third from the bottom out of 21 nations in
mathematics.
According to U.S. manufacturers, 40 percent of all 17-year-olds do
not have the math skills to hold down a production job at a
manufacturing company.
The conclusion of the Education at the Crossroads report is that the
federally designed ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to education is
simply not working.
Mr. President, I believe we need a federal education policy that
will:
Give parents more control.
Give local schools and school boards more control.
Spend dollars in the classrooms, not on a Washington bureaucracy.
Reaffirm our commitment to basic academics.
My state of Arizona has led the way with education tax credit
legislation passed in 1997. This state law provides tax credits that
can be used by parents and businesses to cover certain types of
expenses attendant to primary and secondary education.
Mr. President, today, Representative Salmon and I are reintroducing a
form of the Arizona education tax-credit law.
The K through 12 Community Participating Education Act would be
phased in over four years and would encourage parents, businesses, and
other members of the community to invest in our children's education.
Specifically, it offers every family or business a tax credit of up
to $250 annually for any K through 12 education expense or activity.
This tax credit could be applied to home schooling, public schools
(including charter schools), or parochial schools. Allowable expenses
would include tuition, books, supplies, and tutors.
Further, the tax credit could be given to a ``school-tuition
organization'' for distribution. To qualify as a school-tuition
organization, the organization would have to devote at least 90 percent
of its income per year to offering available grants and scholarships
for parents to use to send their children to the school of their
choice.
How would this work? A group of businesses in any community could
join forces to send sums for which they received tax credits to
charitable ``school-tuition organizations'' which would make
scholarships and grants available to low income parents of children
currently struggling to learn in unsafe, non-functional schools.
Providing all parents--including low income parents--increased
freedom to choose will foster competition and increase parental
involvement in education.
Insuring this choice will make the federal education tax code more
like Arizona's. It is a limited but important step the Congress and the
President can--and I believe, must--take.
Mr. President, it's clear that top-down, one-size-fits-all, big
government education policy has failed our children and our country.
This tax-credit legislation will refocus our efforts on doing what is
in the best interests of the child as determined by parents, and will
give parents and businesses the opportunity to take an important step
to rescue American education so that we can have the educated citizenry
that Thomas Jefferson said was essential to our health as a nation.
______

By Mr. ROBB (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
S. 139. A bill to grant the power to the President to reduce budget
authority; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on
Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977,
with instructions that if one Committee reports, the other Committee
have thirty days to report or be discharged.

separate enrollment and line item veto act of 1999

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Separate Enrollment
and Line Item Veto Act of 1999. I'm pleased to be joined by my long-
time colleague and tireless fighter for budget sanity, Senator Hollings
of South Carolina.
As former governors, we both understand the importance of line-item
veto authority in prioritizing spending. The legislation we introduce
today is similar to that passed by the Senate in 1995, which is
patterned on the separate enrollment process that we both supported
with former Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey.
I have been a long-time supporter of various line-item veto measures
because I believe that only the President has the singular ability to
reconcile spending priorities in the best interest of the nation.
Recognizing that Congress has been unable or unwilling to seriously
address our problems with special interest tax provisions and spending
for members' pet projects, as last year's appropriations process
attests, some form of additional veto authority should be given to the
President. Otherwise, the President continues to have to approve items
in bills which he doesn't support to approve those that he does.
As my colleagues know, the Separate Enrollment Line Item Veto
legislation we passed in 1995 in the Senate was ultimately changed in
conference negotiations with the House of Representatives. The end
product of those negotiations was an enhanced rescission line item veto
process, giving the President the ability to strike items from bills
after signing them into law. Because that approach was struck down by
the Supreme Court, I believe the line item veto is an important enough
fiscal tool that we ought to put forward other alternatives.
The separate enrollment process contained in this bill presents few
constitutional concerns. This process doesn't give the President the
ability to strike items from bills he otherwise approves. This approach
breaks down bills into their individual parts that are then passed
again as separate bills, making sure each provision can then stand on
its own merits.
In closing, let me acknowledge that this line item veto legislation,
like the previous experiment, won't solve all the nation's fiscal
problems, but that it is a needed step if we are interested in pursuing
good public and budget policy.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Robb to
introduce the Separate Enrollment and Line Item Veto Act of 1999. This
Congress, I hope the Senate will finally dispense with political
gamesmanship

[[Page 882]]

and enact a true line item veto. It is past time to restore
responsibility to federal spending by granting the President the power
to strike wasteful and unnecessary items from our budget.
The bill we are introducing today is a ``separate enrollment'' line
item veto. It provides that each spending or tax provision be enrolled
as a separate bill, allowing the President to either sign or veto each
of these smaller bills in accordance with the veto power expressly
granted under Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. This
legislation is designed to allow the President to strike spending or
tax items from the budget without violating the delicate separation of
powers which exists under our Constitution. In contrast, the so-called
``enhanced rescission'' line item veto--enacted in 1996 and struck down
by the Supreme Court on June 25, 1998--represented a shift in the
separation of powers. Under that approach, the President had the
authority to sign a bill into law, then strike individual provisions
and require a Congressional supermajority to override these
rescissions. In doing so, the President was clearly performing a
legislative function granted exclusively to Congress by the
Constitution.
When the Supreme Court announced its decision striking down the 1996
line item veto, the White House and many in Congress clamored in the
media about how disappointed they were. The truth is that no one was
really surprised. In fact, many Senators--including myself--made
statements in 1996 and voted against the bill because it was
unconstitutional. The events surrounding the enactment of the 1996 law
clearly show that politics was placed before policy. In 1995 our
separate enrollment approach had received bipartisan support in the
Senate, with 69 Senators voting for the measure. The ``enhanced
rescission'' approach, on the other hand, received only 45 votes when
considered in 1993, with several Senators raising constitutional
objections during the debate. However, in an apparent attempt to put
off meaningful reform in favor of Presidential politics, the ``enhanced
rescission'' bill was resurrected in 1996 in an effort to score
political points. Now, we have come full circle after the Court's
decision. It is time to get serious and enact the same bill which
received 69 votes in 1995.
Mr. President, I am no stranger to this issue. As Governor of South
Carolina, I saw first hand how effective the line item veto can be. I
used it to cut millions of dollars in wasteful spending from the state
budget, and in the process helped earn South Carolina the first AAA
credit rating in the state's history. The Governors of 43 states now
possess line item veto authority. I have been trying for years to bring
this same approach to Washington. I have introduced or co-sponsored a
separate enrollment line-item veto in every Congress since 1985. In
that year, I co-sponsored Senator Mack Mattingly's separate enrollment
bill, which received 58 votes in the Senate. In 1990, I offered a
similar bill in the Senate Budget Committee, which passed the line item
veto for the first time in history by a bipartisan vote of 13-6. In
1993, after Senator Bradley came on board, we were again able to get a
majority of 53 votes. Then, in 1995, support for the bill reached an
all-time high when the bill finally passed the Senate with 69 votes.
One needs to look no further than last year's end of the session
debacle to see the need for the line item veto. Nearly an entire year's
worth of legislation--including eight of the thirteen normal
appropriations bills, an emergency spending bill, and a tax
``extenders'' bill--was wrapped into a monstrosity entitled the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill for Fiscal
Year 1999. The time period between the drafting of the bill and its
enactment was so short that Senators made statements on the floor that
they did not even know the contents of the bill. Unfortunately, this
type of omnibus appropriations has become common in recent years, and
it prevents an obvious opportunity for abuse. Wasteful spending and tax
items are included in these huge, hastily drafted bills, and the
President is faced with a ``take it or leave it'' proposition. With the
session winding down, he often is forced to ``take it,'' including
items which are totally without merit. The line item veto would prevent
this type of waste and irresponsibility by allowing each item to be
considered separately.
I urge my colleagues to support this line item veto bill with the
same bi-partisan support it received in 1995 so that we may finally
restore responsibility to our federal budget process.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
S. 140. A bill to establish the Thomas Cole National Historic Site in
the State of New York as an affiliated area of the National Park
System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.

thomas cole national historic site designation act

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill which would
place the home and studio of Thomas Cole under the care of the Greene
County Historical Society as a National Historic Site. I am pleased
Senator Schumer has agreed to cosponsor this bill. Thomas Cole founded
the American artistic tradition known as the Hudson River School. He
painted landscapes of the American wilderness as it never had been
depicted, untamed and majestic, the way Americans saw it in the 1830s
and 1840s as they moved west. His students and followers included
Frederick Church, Alfred Bierstadt, Thomas Moran, and John Frederick
Kennesett.
No description of Cole's works would do them justice, but let me say
that their moody, dramatic style and subject matter were in sharp
contrast to the pastoral European landscapes that Americans previously
had admired. The new country was just settled enough that some people
had time and resources to devote to collecting art. Cole's new style
coincided with this growing interest, to the benefit of both.
Cole had begun his painting career in Manhattan, but one day took a
steamboat up the Hudson for inspiration. It worked. The landscapes he
saw set him on the artistic course that became his life's work. He
eventually moved to a house up the river in Catskill. First he boarded;
then he bought the house. He married and raised his family there. That
house, known as Cedar Grove, remained in the Cole family until 1979,
when it was put up for sale.
The Cole house would be only the second site under the umbrella of
the Park Service dedicated to interpreting the life and work of an
American painter.
Olana, Church's home, sits immediately across the Hudson, so we have
the opportunity to provide visitors with two nearby destinations that
show the inspiration for two of America's foremost nineteenth century
painters. Visitors could walk, hike, or drive to the actual spots where
masterpieces were painted and see the landscape much as it was then.
I regret that none of Thomas Cole's work hang in the Capitol,
although two works by Bierstadt can be found in the stairwell outside
the Speaker's Lobby. Perhaps Cole's greatest work is the four-part
Voyage of Life, an allegorical series that depicts man in the four
stages of life. It can be found in the National Gallery, along with two
other Cole paintings. Another work of Cole's that we would be advised
to remember is The Course of Empire, which depicts the rise of a great
civilization from the wilderness, and its return.
Several years ago the first major Cole exhibition in decades was held
at the National Museum of American Art. The exhibition was all the
evidence needed of Cole's importance and the merit of adding his home
to the list of National Historic Sites. I should add that this must
happen soon. The house needs work, and will not endure many more
winters in its present state.
This legislation would authorize cooperative agreements under which
the management of the Cole House would go to the Greene County
Historical Society, which is entirely qualified for the job. The
Society could enter into cooperative agreements with the National Park
Service for the preservation and interpretation of the site.
I ask unanimous consent that my colleagues support this legislation,
and

[[Page 883]]

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. 140

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 ``Thomas Cole National
Historic Site Designation Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Hudson River school of landscape painting was
inspired by Thomas Cole and was characterized by a group of
19th century landscape artists who recorded and celebrated
the landscape and wilderness of the United States,
particularly in the Hudson River Valley region in the State
of New York;
(2) Thomas Cole is recognized as the United States's most
prominent landscape and allegorical painter of the mid-19th
century;
(3) located in Greene County, New York, the Thomas Cole
House, also known as Thomas Cole's Cedar Grove, is listed on
the National Register of Historic Places and has been
designated as a National Historic Landmark;
(4) within a 15-mile radius of the Thomas Cole House, an
area that forms a key part of the rich cultural and natural
heritage of the Hudson River Valley region, significant
landscapes and scenes painted by Thomas Cole and other Hudson
River artists, such as Frederic Church, survive intact;
(5) the State of New York has established the Hudson River
Valley Greenway to promote the preservation, public use, and
enjoyment of the natural and cultural resources of the Hudson
River Valley region; and
(6) establishment of the Thomas Cole National Historic Site
will provide--
(A) opportunities for the illustration and interpretation
of cultural themes of the heritage of the United States; and
(B) unique opportunities for education, public use, and
enjoyment.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to preserve and interpret the Thomas Cole House and
studio for the benefit, inspiration, and education of the
people of the United States;
(2) to help maintain the integrity of the setting in the
Hudson River Valley region that inspired artistic expression;
(3) to coordinate the interpretive, preservation, and
recreational efforts of Federal, State, and other entities in
the Hudson Valley region in order to enhance opportunities
for education, public use, and enjoyment; and
(4) to broaden understanding of the Hudson River Valley
region and its role in the history and culture of the United
States.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Historic site.--The term ``historic site'' means the
Thomas Cole National Historic Site established by section 4.
(2) Hudson river artist.--The term ``Hudson River artist''
means an artist associated with the Hudson River school of
landscape painting.
(3) Plan.--The term ``plan'' means the general management
plan developed under section 6(d).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(5) Society.--The term ``Society'' means the Greene County
Historical Society of Greene County, New York, that owns the
Thomas Cole House, studio, and other property comprising the
historic site.

SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THOMAS COLE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.

(a) Establishment.--There is established, as an affiliated
area of the National Park System, the Thomas Cole National
Historic Site in the State of New York.
(b) Description.--The historic site shall consist of the
Thomas Cole House and studio, comprising approximately 3.4
acres, located at 218 Spring Street in the village of
Catskill, New York, as generally depicted on the boundary map
numbered TCH/80002, and dated March 1992.

SEC. 5. RETENTION OF OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF HISTORIC
SITE BY GREENE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY.

Under a cooperative agreement entered into under section
6(b)(1), the Greene County Historical Society of Greene
County, New York, shall own, manage, and operate the historic
site.

SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATION OF HISTORIC SITE.

(a) Applicability of National Park System Laws.--Under a
cooperative agreement entered into under subsection (b)(1),
the historic site shall be administered by the Society in a
manner consistent with this Act and all laws generally
applicable to units of the National Park System, including--
(1) the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a National Park
Service, and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 1916
(16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); and
(2) the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the
preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects,
and antiquities of national significance, and for other
purposes'', approved August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
(b) Cooperative Agreements.--
(1) Assistance to society.--The Secretary may enter into
cooperative agreements with the Society--
(A) to preserve the Thomas Cole House and other structures
in the historic site; and
(B) to assist with education programs and research and
interpretation of the Thomas Cole House and associated
landscapes in the historic site.
(2) Other assistance.--The Secretary may enter into
cooperative agreements with the State of New York, the
Society, the Thomas Cole Foundation, and other public and
private entities to--
(A) further the purposes of this Act; and
(B) develop, present, and fund art exhibits, resident
artist programs, and other appropriate activities related to
the preservation, interpretation, and use of the historic
site.
(c) Artifacts and Property.--
(1) Personal property generally.--The Secretary may acquire
personal property associated with, and appropriate for, the
interpretation of the historic site.
(2) Works of art.--The Secretary may acquire works of art
associated with Thomas Cole and other Hudson River artists
for the purpose of display at the historic site.
(d) General Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2000, under a
cooperative agreement entered into under section 6(b)(1), the
Society, with the assistance of the Secretary, shall develop
a general management plan for the historic site.
(2) Contents of plan.--The plan shall include
recommendations for regional wayside exhibits, to be carried
out through cooperative agreements with the State of New York
and other public and private entities.
(3) Authority.--The plan shall be prepared in accordance
with section 12(b) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-7(b)).
(4) Submission of plan.--On the completion of the plan, the
Secretary shall provide a copy of the plan to--
(A) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives.

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 141. A bill to amend section 845 of title 18, United States Code,
relating to explosive materials; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

legislation relating to explosive material

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which
restricts those who can have access to black powder, the primary
ingredient in pipe bombs. At present, there are no restrictions on
those who wish to buy commercially manufactured black powder in
quantities not to exceed 50 pounds solely for sporting or recreational
purposes. Anyone, including a convicted felon, a fugitive from justice,
and a person adjudicated to be mentally defective, can buy commercially
manufactured black powder in the above amounts with no questions asked.
This is both wrong and dangerous. The same restrictions that apply to
who can buy explosives should also apply to those who can lawfully buy
commercially manufactured black powder.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 141

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

SECTION 1. EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS.

Section 845(a) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(2) by striking paragraph (5) and redesignating paragraph
(6) as paragraph (5).
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 142. A bill to amend section 842 of title 18, United States Code,
relating to explosive materials transfers; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

legislation to require that the federal government be notified when
explosives are purchased

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that
would require vendors of explosives to notify the Federal Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (B.A.T.F.) when they sell such items.
Now, there is no requirement that a seller notify the B.A.T.F. when a
customer buys explosives. All that is required is that the

[[Page 884]]

buyer complete a federally generated form--5400.4--and that the seller
keep it. There is nothing that requires the seller to send a copy of
this form to the B.A.T.F.
In all likelihood, any terrorist attach aimed at this country's
infrastructure will use explosives to achieve its purpose. One key way
to prevent an attack such as this is to have information about the
individuals who are buying these items.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 142

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

SECTION 1. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS
TRANSFERS.

Section 842(f) of title 18, United States Code, is amended,
in the first sentence--
(1) by striking ``require,'' and inserting ``require ('';
and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``) and transmitting a copy of each such record to
the Secretary''.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 143. A bill to amend the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 to
standardize the physical examinations that each boxer must take prior
to each professional boxing match and to require a brain CAT scan every
2 years as a requirement for the licensing of a boxer; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

The Professional Boxing Safety Act Amendments of 1996

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, On January 3, 1999, Jerry Quarry, a
perennial heavyweight boxing champion contender in the 1960's and
1970's, died of pneumonia brought on by an advanced state of dementia
pugilistica. He was 53. The list goes on: Sugar Ray Robinson, Archie
Moore and Muhammad Ali are but a few examples. The Professional Boxing
Safety Act of 1996 was an excellent step toward making professional
boxing safer for its participants. Nevertheless, it contains several
gaps.
The two amendments I propose here today are aimed at protecting
professional fighters by requiring more rigorous prefight physical
examinations and by requiring a brain catscan before a boxer can renew
his or her professional license.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 143

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 ``Professional Boxing Safety
Act Amendments of 1999''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE PROFESSIONAL BOXING SAFETY ACT OF
1996.

(a) Standardized Physical Examinations.--Section 5(1) of
the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C.
6304(1)) is amended by inserting after ``examination'' the
following: ``, based on guidelines endorsed by the American
Medical Association, including a circulo-respiratory check
and a neurological examination,''.
(b) CAT Scans.--Section 6(b)(2) of the Professional Boxing
Safety Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C. 6305(b)(2)) is amended by
inserting before the period the following: ``and, with
respect to such renewal, present proof from a physician that
such boxer has taken a computerized axial tomography (CAT)
scan within the 30-day period preceding that date on which
the renewal application is submitted and that no brain damage
from boxing has been detected''.
______

By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Mack):
S. 144. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to review the
suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation
System of the Everglades expansion area; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.

REVIEW OF EVERGLADES EXPANSION AREA FOR POTENTIAL AS WILDERNESS

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, since my days as Governor of the State of
Florida, I have been a strong advocate of the protection and
restoration of the Florida Everglades, the largest wetland and
subtropical wilderness in the United States. This legislation will
require the Secretary of the Interior to review the suitability for
inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System of the
Everglades expansion area, a designation that will protect and preserve
this area for the use of present and future generations. This action
will be an important step towards maintaining the natural habitat of
such endangered species as the Florida panther, the snail kite, and the
cape sable seaside sparrow, as well as sustaining uninterupted water
flow to the Everglades' aquifers, the main water source for the
majority of the rapidly growing state of Florida. Over the last 100
years, this ecosystem has been altered by man to provide for
development, to manage water for irrigation, and to provide flood
control in times of hurricanes. The review of this land for potential
as wilderness may lead to greater future protection of the Everglades
ecosystem.
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. 144

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

SECTION 1. REVIEW OF EVERGLADES EXPANSION AREA FOR POTENTIAL
AS WILDERNESS.

(a) Definition of Addition.--In this section, the term
``addition'' has the meaning given the term in section 101(c)
of the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act
of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-5(c)).
(b) Review and Report.--Subject to subsection (c), in
accordance with section 3 of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C.
1132), the Secretary of the Interior shall review and report
on the suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness
Preservation System of any part of the addition.
(c) Effective Date.--Subsection (b) shall take effect--
(1) on the date of submission to Congress of the proposed
comprehensive plan to restore, preserve, and protect the
South Florida ecosystem required by section 528(b) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3767); but
(2) only if the plan does not specify that construction and
water storage are required in the addition (as determined by
the Secretary of the Interior).
______

By Mr. ABRAHAM:
S. 145. A bill to control crime by requiring mandatory victim
restitution; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Victim Restitution Enforcement Act

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Victim
Restitution Enforcement Act of 1999. I have long supported restitution
for crime victims, and have long been convinced that justice requires
us to devise effective mechanisms through which victims can enforce
restitution orders and make criminals pay for their crimes.
I was very pleased when we enacted mandatory victim restitution
legislation in the 104th Congress as part of the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. I supported that legislation and
very much appreciated the efforts of my colleagues, particularly
Senators Hatch, Biden, Nickles, Grassley, and McCain, to ensure that
victim restitution provisions were included in the antiterrorism
legislation.
Those victim restitution provisions--brought together as the
Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996--will significantly advance
the cause of justice for victims in federal criminal cases. The Act
requires federal courts, when sentencing criminal defendants, to order
these defendants to pay restitution to the victims of their crimes. It
also establishes a single set of procedures for the issuance of
restitution orders in federal criminal cases to provide uniformity in
the federal system. Inclusion of mandatory victim restitution
provisions in the federal criminal code was long overdue, and I am
pleased that the 104th Congress was able to accomplish that.
However, much more remains to be done to ensure that victims can
actually collect those restitution payments and to provide victims with
effective means to pursue whatever restitution payments are owed to
them. Even if a defendant may not have the resources

[[Page 885]]

to pay off a restitution order fully, victims should still be entitled
to go after whatever resources a defendant does have and to collect
whatever they can. We should not effectively tell victims that it is
not worth going after whatever payments they might get. That is what
could happen under the current system, in which victims have to rely on
government attorneys--who may be busy with many other matters--to
pursue restitution payments. Instead, we should give victims themselves
the tools they need so that they can get what is rightfully theirs.
The victim restitution provisions enacted in the 104th Congress
consolidated the procedures for the collection of unpaid restitution
with existing procedures for the collection of unpaid fines. Unless
more steps are taken to make enforcement of restitution orders more
effective for victims, we risk allowing mandatory restitution to be
mandatory in name only, with criminals able to evade ever paying their
restitution and victims left without the ability to take action to
enforce restitution orders.
In the 104th Congress, I introduced the Victim Restitution
Enforcement Act of 1995. Many components of my legislation were also
included in the victim restitution legislation enacted as part of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The legislation I
introduce today is similar to the legislation I introduced in the 104th
Congress as Senate Bill S. 1504 and again in the 105th Congress as S.
812, and is designed to build on what are now current provisions of
law. All in all, I hope to ensure that restitution payments from
criminals to victims become a reality, and that victims have a greater
degree of control in going after criminals to obtain restitution
payments.
Under my legislation, restitution orders would be enforceable as a
civil debt, payable immediately. Most restitution is now collected
entirely through the criminal justice system. It is frequently paid as
directed by the probation officer, which means restitution payments
cannot begin until the prisoner is released. This bill makes
restitution orders payable immediately, as a civil debt, speeding
recovery and impeding attempts by criminals to avoid repayment. This
provision will not impose criminal penalties on those unable to pay,
but will simply allow civil collection against those who have assets.
This will provide victims with new means of collecting restitution
payments. If the debt is payable immediately, all normal civil
collection procedures, including the Federal Debt Collection Act, can
be used to collect the debt. The bill explicitly gives victims access
to other civil procedures already in place for the collection of debts.
This lightens the burden of collecting debt on our Federal courts and
prosecutors.
My bill further provides that Federal courts will continue to have
jurisdiction over criminal restitution judgments for five years, not
including time that the defendant is incarcerated. The court is
presently permitted to resentence or take several other actions against
a criminal who willfully refuses to make restitution payments; the
court may do so until the termination of the term of parole. Courts
should have the ability to do more over a longer period of time, and to
select those means that are more likely to prove successful. Under my
bill, during the extended period, Federal courts will be permitted,
where the defendant knowingly fails to make restitution payments, to
modify the terms or conditions of a defendant's parole, extend the
defendant's probation or supervised release, hold the defendant in
contempt, increase the defendant's original sentence, or revoke
probation or supervised release.
My legislation will also give the courts power to impose pre-sentence
restraints on defendants' uses of their assets in appropriate cases.
This will prevent well-heeled defendants from dissipating assets prior
to sentencing. Without such provisions, mandatory victim restitution
provisions may well be useless in many cases. Even in those rare cases
in which a defendant has the means to pay full restitution at once, if
the court has no capacity to prevent the defendant from spending ill-
gotten gains or other assets prior to the sentencing phase, there may
be nothing left for the victim by the time the restitution order is
entered.
The provisions permitting pre-sentence restraints are similar to
other provisions that already exist in the law for private civil
actions and asset forfeiture cases, and they provide adequate
protections for defendants. They require a court hearing, for example,
and place the burden on the government to show by a preponderance of
the evidence that pre-sentence restraints are warranted.
In short, I want to make criminals pay and to give victims the tools
with which to make them pay. In enacting mandatory victim restitution
legislation in the 104th Congress, we demonstrated our willingness to
make some crimes subject to this process. I believe we must take
additional steps to make those mandatorily issued orders easily
enforceable.
This legislation is supported by the National Victim Center and by
the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. I ask
unanimous consent to have placed in the Record letters of support from
those victims' rights organizations.
I urge my colleagues to support my legislation, which will empower
victims to collect on the debts that they are owed by criminals and
which will improve the enforceability of restitution orders.
I also ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be placed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Section-by-Section Analysis

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This section provides that the act may be cited as the
``Victim Restitution Enforcement Act of 1999.''

SECTION 2. PROCEDURES FOR ISSUANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OF
RESTITUTION ORDER.

This section amends the Federal criminal code to revise
procedures for the issuance and enforcement of restitution
orders. The legislation directs the court to: (1) order the
probation service of the court to obtain and include in its
presentence report, or in a separate report, information
sufficient for the court to exercise its discretion in
fashioning a restitution order (which shall include a
complete accounting of the losses to each victim, any
restitution owed pursuant to a plea agreement, and
information relating to the economic circumstances of each
defendant); and (2) disclose to the defendant and the
attorney for the Government all portions of the report
pertaining to such matters.
This section also makes specified provisions of the Federal
criminal code and Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure the only rules applicable to proceedings for the
issuance and enforcement of restitution orders. It authorizes
the court, upon application of the United States, to enter a
restraining order or injunction, require the execution of a
satisfactory performance bond, or take any other action to
preserve the availability of property or assets necessary to
satisfy a criminal restitution order, if specified
circumstances apply.
This legislation also sets forth provisions regarding: (1)
notice requirements; (2) evidence and information that the
court may consider at a hearing; (3) the use of temporary
restraining orders; (4) disclosure of financial information
regarding the defendant; (5) the use of consumer credit
reports; (6) timetables for the attorney for the United
States to provide the probation service of the court with
information available to the attorney, including matters
occurring before the grand jury relating to the identity of
the victims, the amount of loss, and financial matters
relating to the defendant.
Further, this section directs the attorney for the
Government to provide notice to all victims. It authorizes:
(1) the court to limit the information to be provided or
sought by the probation service under specified
circumstances; (2) a victim who objects to any information
provided to the probation service by the attorney for the
United States to file a separate affidavit with the court;
and (3) the court to require additional documentation or hear
testimony after reviewing the report of the probation
service. Provides for the privacy of records filed and
testimony heard and permits records to be filed or testimony
to be heard in camera.
This legislation also establishes procedures regarding the
court's ascertaining of the victims' losses. It permits the
court to refer any issue arising in connection with a
proposed restitution order to a magistrate or special master
for proposed findings of fact and recommendations as to
disposition, subject to a de novo determination of the issue
by the court. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1)
consideration of compensation for losses from insurance or
other sources; and (2) the burden of proof.

[[Page 886]]

The bill directs the court to order restitution to each
victim in the full amount of each victim's losses as
determined by the court without consideration of the
defendant's economic circumstances. It sets forth provisions
regarding situations where the amount of the loss is not
reasonably ascertainable, and where there is more than one
defendant. The bill also specifies that no victim shall be
required to participate in any phase of a restitution order.
This legislation requires the defendant to notify the court
and the Attorney General of any material change in the
defendant's economic circumstances that might affect the
defendant's ability to pay restitution. Authorizes the court
to adjust the payment schedule.
It also sets forth provisions regarding: (1) court
retention of jurisdiction over criminal restitution
judgments; and (2) enforcement of restitution orders.
Further, this section specifies that: (1) a conviction of a
defendant for an offense giving rise to restitution shall
estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of
that offense in any subsequent Federal civil proceeding or
State civil proceeding, regardless of any State law
precluding estoppel for a lack of mutuality; and (2) the
victim, in such subsequent proceeding, shall not be precluded
from establishing a loss that is greater than that determined
by the court in the earlier criminal proceeding.

SECTION 3. CIVIL REMEDIES

This section adds restitution to a provision governing the
post-sentence administration of fines. Provides that an order
of restitution shall operate as a lien in favor of the United
States for its benefit or for the benefit of any non-federal
victims against all property belonging to the defendant.
Authorizes the court, in enforcing a restitution order, to
order jointly owned property divided and sold, subject to
specified requirements.

SECTION 4. FINES

Species that a defendant shall not incur any criminal
penalty for failure to make a payment on a fine, special
assessment, restitution, or cost because of the defendant's
indigency.

SECTION 5. RESENTENCING

This section authorizes the court, where a defendant
knowingly fails to pay a delinquent fine, to increase the
defendant's sentence to any sentence that might originally
have been imposed under the applicable statute.
______

By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Allard, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Hatch, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Helms, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr.
Grams, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Coverdell):
S. 146. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to
penalties for crimes involving cocaine, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

the powder cocaine sentencing act

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce ``The Powder Cocaine
Sentencing Act of 1999.'' This legislation would toughen federal policy
toward powder cocaine dealers by reducing from 500 to 50 grams the
amount of powder cocaine a person must be convicted of distributing in
order to receive a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence.
I am convinced, Mr. President, that we need tougher sentences for
powder cocaine dealers so that we may protect our kids from drugs and
our neighborhoods from the violence and social breakdown that accompany
drug trafficking.
We have seen a disturbing trend in recent years, a reversal, really,
of the decade long progress we enjoyed in the war on drugs. For
example, over the last six years the percentage of high school seniors
admitting that they had used an illicit drug has risen by more than
half. This spells trouble for our children. Increased drug use means
increased danger of every social pathology of which we know. It must
stop.
Ironically, at the same time that we are learning the disturbing news
about overall drug use among teens, we also are finding heartening news
in our war on violent crime. The F.B.I. now reports that, since 1991,
the number of homicides committed in the United States has dropped by
31 percent. Also since 1991, the number of robberies has fallen 32
percent. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, robberies fell
a stunning 17 percent in 1997 alone.
This is good news, Mr. President. And there is widespread agreement
among experts in the field that the principal cause of this decline in
violent crime is our success in curbing the crack cocaine epidemic and
the violent gang activities that accompany that epidemic. The New York
Times recently reported on a conference of criminologists held in New
Orleans. Experts at the conference agreed that the rise and fall in
violent crime during the 1980s and 1990s closely paralleled the rise
and fall of the crack epidemic.
At the same time, there is a warning signal here. The most recent
``Monitoring the Future'' Study done by the University of Michigan,
which tracks drug use and attitudes by teenagers, showed an increase in
the use of both crack and powder cocaine this year. This is in contrast
to its finding that the use of other drugs by kids may finally be
leveling off, albeit at unacceptably high levels.
Yet surprisingly, despite these developments, in last year's Ten Year
Plan for a National Drug Control Strategy, the Administration proposed
making crack sentences 5 times more lenient than they are today. Why?
The Administration say we need to reduce crack dealer sentences because
they are too tough when compared to sentences for powder cocaine
dealers. And it is true that it does not make sense for people higher
on the drug chain to get lighter sentences than those at the bottom.
But going easier on crack peddlers--the dealers who infest our school
yards and playgrounds--is not the solution. Crack is cheap and highly
addictive. Tough crack sentences have encouraged many dealers to turn
in their superiors in exchange for leniency. Softening these sentences
will remove that incentive and undermine our prosecutors, making them
less effective at protecting our children and our neighborhoods.
The Powder Cocaine Sentencing Act rests on the conviction that there
is a better way to bring crack and powder cocaine sentences more in
line. First, it rejects any proposal to lower sentences for crack
dealers. Second, it makes sentences for powder cocaine dealers a good
deal tougher than they are today.
Mr. President, this legislation will reduce the differential between
the amount of powder and crack cocaine required to trigger a mandatory
minimum sentence from 100 to 1 to 10 to 1--the same ratio proposed by
the Administration. But this legislation will accomplish that goal, not
by making crack dealer sentences more lenient, but rather by toughening
sentences for powder cocaine dealers.
At this crucial time we may be making real progress in winning the
war on violent crime in part because we have sent the message that
crack gang membership is no way to live and that society will come down
very hard on those spreading this pernicious drug. At the same time our
kids remain all too exposed to dangerous drugs, far more exposed than
any of us can probably really imagine. In light of these two trends, it
would be a catastrophic mistake to let any drug dealer think that the
cost of doing business is going down. As important, Mr. President, it
will be nearly impossible to succeed in discouraging our children from
using drugs if they hear we are lowering sentences for any category of
drug dealers.
I ask my colleagues to send a strong message to drug dealers and to
our kids, the message that drugs are dangerous and illegal, and those
who sell them will not be tolerated. This legislation will send this
message, and I urge my colleagues to give it their full support.
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. 146

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 ``Powder Cocaine Sentencing
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. SENTENCING FOR VIOLATIONS INVOLVING COCAINE POWDER.

(a) Amendment of Controlled Substances Act.--
(1) Large quantities.--Section 401(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(ii)) is
amended by striking ``5 kilograms'' and inserting ``500
grams''.
(2) Small quantities.--Section 401(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the
Controlled Substances

[[Page 887]]

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the ``Powder Cocaine
Sentencing Act of 1999'' sponsored by Senator Spence Abraham of
Michigan. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important
legislation that will toughen federal policy toward powder cocaine
dealers.
As we begin the legislative business of the Senate this year, we must
strengthen our efforts to stop illegal drug use and drug-related crime
and violence. We must fulfill our moral obligation to communicate the
dangers and consequences of illegal drug use. Continuing our fight
against the threat of drug abuse is one of the most important
contributions the 106th Congress can make toward providing a promising
future for the young people of America.
Under current law, a dealer must distribute 500 grams of powder
cocaine to qualify for a 5-year mandatory minimum prison sentence, and
distribute 5 grams of crack cocaine for that offense. These sentencing
guidelines result in a 100-to-1 quantity ratio between powder and more
severe crack cocaine distribution sentences. This disparity has caused
a great deal of concern among members of Congress and the
administration. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration fails to see
the dangers in changing the federal crack cocaine distribution law.
During the 104th Congress, the U.S. Sentencing Commission recommended
a lower threshold under which a convicted person may receive a 5-year
mandatory sentence in cases involving the distribution of crack
cocaine. Through the leadership of Senator Abraham, Congress
overwhelmingly passed legislation which rejected the Sentencing
Commission's proposal. At the signing ceremony for this legislation,
President Clinton expressed the strong message its enactment would send
to our Nation and those who choose to deal drugs throughout our
communities.
President Clinton remarked,

We have to send a constant message to our children that
drugs are illegal, drugs are dangerous, drugs may cost you
your life--and the penalties for dealing drugs are severe. I
am not going to let anyone who peddles drugs get the idea
that the cost of doing business is going down.

Regrettably, the Clinton administration continues to promote a
federal sentencing policy for crack cocaine offenses that fails to
recognize the dangerous and addictive nature of this illegal substance
and its impact upon violent crime throughout our communities. In an
April 1997 report to Congress, the Sentencing Commission unanimously
recommended an increase in the mandatory minimum trigger for the
distribution of crack cocaine.
I share the views expressed by the administration and community
groups in my home state of Minnesota that the current penalty disparity
in cocaine sentencing should be addressed. However, I disagree with the
ill-advised manner in which the administration seeks to achieve this
goal by making the mandatory minimum prison sentences for crack cocaine
dealers at least five times more lenient than they are today.
Mr. President, the legislation offered today by Senator Abraham
represents a fair and effective approach toward federal cocaine
sentencing policy. Rather than make federal crack cocaine sentences
more lenient, the Abraham bill would reduce from 500 to 50 grams the
amount of powder cocaine a person must be convicted of distributing
before receiving a mandatory 5-year sentence. This legislation would
adjust the current 100-to-1 quantity ratio to 10-to-1 by toughening
powder cocaine sentences without reducing crack cocaine sentences.
By February 1, Congress will receive a National Drug Control Strategy
from the Office of National Drug Control Policy which will contain
goals for reducing drug abuse in the United States. As part of this
plan, I am hopeful that National Drug Control Policy Director Barry
McCaffrey will speak out forcefully against any proposal to make
sentences for a person who is convicted of dealing crack cocaine more
lenient. Punishing drug dealers who prey upon the innocence of our
children should be a critical component of our nation's drug strategy.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the ``Powder Cocaine
Sentencing Act of 1999'' and reject lower federal crack sentences. We
should exercise greater oversight of federal sentencing policy for
cocaine offenses. Passage of this legislation will help give greater
protection to Americans from drugs by keeping offenders off the streets
for longer periods of time.
______

By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Ashcroft, and Mr.
DeWine):
S. 147. A bill to provide for a reduction in regulatory costs by
maintaining Federal average fuel economy standards applicable to
automobiles in effect at current levels until changed by law, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

corporate average fuel economy standards

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
with Senators Levin, Ashcroft, and DeWine that would freeze the
Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards--known as CAFE--at current
levels unless changed by Congress.
This issue is attracting an increased amount of attention as
automobile manufacturers continue to increase car and light truck
efficiency and as Americans begin to understand the consequences of
increased fuel economy standards: less consumer choice, more dangerous
vehicles and reduced competitiveness for domestic automobile
manufacturers. Perhaps, Mr. President, some of these repercussions
could be easier to accept if the supposed benefits of increased CAFE
standards were ever realized, but this has not occurred. In the two
decades since CAFE standards were first mandated, this Nation's oil
imports have grown to account for nearly half our annual consumption
and the average number of miles driven by Americans has increased.
Mr. President, last session 15 Senators from both sides of the aisle
joined me in sponsoring this legislation. Given the importance of the
automobile industry to the continued economic health of the country,
the preference for increased capacity that American consumers have
demonstrated and the producers' continuing trend toward more efficient
engines, it is time for the setting of CAFE standards to once again
reside with elected officials.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and 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. 147

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

SECTION 1. AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS.

Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the average
fuel economy standards established (whether directly or
indirectly) under regulations promulgated by the Secretary of
Transportation under chapter 329 of title 49, United States
Code, prior to the date of enactment of this Act for
automobiles (as that term is defined in section 32901 of
title 49, United States Code) that are in effect on the day
before the date of enactment of this Act, shall apply without
amendment, change, or other modification of any kind (whether
direct or indirect) for--
(1) the model years specified in the regulations;
(2) the applicable automobiles specified in the regulations
last promulgated for such automobiles; and

[[Page 888]]

(3) each model year thereafter;

until chapter 329 of title 49, United States Code, is
specifically amended to authorize an amendment, change, or
other modification to such standards or is otherwise modified
or superseded by law.
______

By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr Daschle, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Hatch,
and Mr. Durbin):
S. 148. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to establish
a program to provide assistance in the conservation of neotropical
migratory birds; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

migratory bird protection

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
``Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1999.'' This
legislation, which I am introducing today with my distinguished
colleagues, Senator Daschle and Senator Chafee, is designed to protect
over 90 endangered species of bird spending certain seasons in the
United States and other seasons in other nations of the Western
Hemisphere. This is actually the second time Senator Daschle and I have
introduced this bill. Last year, after receiving considerable support
from the environmental community, this legislation passed the Senate by
unanimous consent. Unfortunately, time ran out for equal consideration
in the House. Nevertheless, we are back again with renewed
determination and I believe the effort in the 106th Congress will prove
successful.
Every year, Mr. President, approximately 25 million Americans travel
to observe birds, and 60 million American adults watch and feed birds
at home. Bird-watching is a source of real pleasure to many Americans,
as well as a source of important revenue to states, like my own state
of Michigan, which attract tourists to their scenes of natural beauty.
Bird watching and feeding generates fully $20 billion every year in
revenue across America.
Birdwatching is a popular activity in Michigan, and its increased
popularity is reflected by an increase in tourist dollars being spent
in small, rural communities. Healthy bird populations also prevent
hundreds of millions of dollars in economic losses each year to farming
and timber interests. They help control insect populations, thereby
preventing crop failures and infestations.
Despite the enormous benefits we derive from our bird populations,
many of them are struggling to survive. Ninety species are listed as
endangered or threatened in the United States. Another 124 species are
of high conservation concern. In my own state we are working to bring
the Kirtland's Warbler back from the brink of extinction. In recent
years, the population of this distinctive bird has been estimated at
approximately 200 nesting pairs. That number has recently increased to
an estimated 800 nesting pairs, but this entire species spends half of
the year in the Bahamas. Therefore, the significant efforts made by
Michigan's Department of Natural Resources and concerned residents will
not be enough to save this bird if its winter habitat is degraded or
destroyed. Not surprisingly, the primary reason for most declines is
the loss of bird habitat.
This situation is not unique, among bird watchers' favorites, many
neotropical birds are endangered or of high conservation concern. And
several of the most popular neotropical species, including bluebirds,
robins, goldfinches and orioles, migrate to and from the Caribbean and
Latin America.
Because neotropical migratory birds range across a number of
international borders every year, we must work to establish safeguards
at both ends of their migration routes, as well as at critical stopover
areas along their way. Only in this way can conservation efforts prove
successful.
That is why Senator Daschle, Senator Chafee and I have introduced the
``Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.'' This legislation will
protect bird habitats across international boundaries by establishing
partnerships between the business community, nongovernmental
organizations and foreign nations. By teaming businesses with
international organizations concerned to protect the environment we can
combine capital with know-how. By partnering these entities with local
organizations in countries where bird habitat is endangered we can see
to it that local people receive the training they need to preserve this
habitat and maintain this critical natural resource.
This act establishes a three year demonstration project providing $8
million each year to help establish programs in the United States,
Latin America and the Caribbean. The greater portion of these funds
will be focused outside the U.S. Approved programs will manage and
conserve neotropical migratory bird populations. Those eligible to
participate will include national and international nongovernmental
organizations and business interest, as well as U.S. government
entities.
The key to this act is cooperation among nongovernmental
organizations. The federal share of each project's cost is never to
exceed 33 percent. For grants awarded outside the U.S., the nonfederal
match can be made with in-kind contributions. This will encourage
volunteerism and local interest in communities that lack the financial
resource to contribute currency. Since domestic organizations and
communities are more financially secure, the matching portion of grants
awarded within the U.S. will be required in cash.
The approach taken by this legislation differs from that of current
programs in that it is proactive and, by avoiding a crisis management
approach, will prove significantly more cost effective. In addition,
this legislation does not call for complicated and expensive
bureaucratic structures such as councils, commissions or multi-tiered
oversight structures. Further, this legislation will bring needed
attention and expertise to areas now receiving relatively little
attention in the area of environmental degradation.
This legislation has the support of the National Audubon Society, the
American Bird Conservancy and the Ornithological Council. These
organizations agree with Senator Daschle, Senator Chafee and I that, by
establishing partnerships between business, government and
nongovernmental organizations both here and abroad we can greatly
enhance the protection of migratory bird habitat.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask unanimous consent
that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 148

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 ``Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) of the nearly 800 bird species known to occur in the
United States, approximately 500 migrate among countries, and
the large majority of those species, the neotropical
migrants, winter in Latin America and the Caribbean;
(2) neotropical migratory bird species provide invaluable
environmental, economic, recreational, and aesthetic benefits
to the United States, as well as to the Western Hemisphere;
(3)(A) many neotropical migratory bird populations, once
considered common, are in decline, and some have declined to
the point that their long-term survival in the wild is in
jeopardy; and
(B) the primary reason for the decline in the populations
of those species is habitat loss and degradation (including
pollution and contamination) across the species' range; and
(4)(A) because neotropical migratory birds range across
numerous international borders each year, their conservation
requires the commitment and effort of all countries along
their migration routes; and
(B) although numerous initiatives exist to conserve
migratory birds and their habitat, those initiatives can be
significantly strengthened and enhanced by increased
coordination.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to perpetuate healthy populations of neotropical
migratory birds;
(2) to assist in the conservation of neotropical migratory
birds by supporting conservation initiatives in the United
States, Latin America, and the Caribbean; and
(3) to provide financial resources and to foster
international cooperation for those initiatives.

[[Page 889]]

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Account.--The term ``Account'' means the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Account established by section
9(a).
(2) Conservation.--The term ``conservation'' means the use
of methods and procedures necessary to bring a species of
neotropical migratory bird to the point at which there are
sufficient populations in the wild to ensure the long-term
viability of the species, including--
(A) protection and management of neotropical migratory bird
populations;
(B) maintenance, management, protection, and restoration of
neotropical migratory bird habitat;
(C) research and monitoring;
(D) law enforcement; and
(E) community outreach and education.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 5. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a program to
provide financial assistance for projects to promote the
conservation of neotropical migratory birds.
(b) Project Applicants.--A project proposal may be
submitted by--
(1) an individual, corporation, partnership, trust,
association, or other private entity;
(2) an officer, employee, agent, department, or
instrumentality of the Federal Government, of any State,
municipality, or political subdivision of a State, or of any
foreign government;
(3) a State, municipality, or political subdivision of a
State;
(4) any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States or of any foreign country; and
(5) an international organization (as defined in section 1
of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C.
288)).
(c) Project Proposals.--To be considered for financial
assistance for a project under this Act, an applicant shall
submit a project proposal that--
(1) includes--
(A) the name of the individual responsible for the project;
(B) a succinct statement of the purposes of the project;
(C) a description of the qualifications of individuals
conducting the project; and
(D) an estimate of the funds and time necessary to complete
the project, including sources and amounts of matching funds;
(2) demonstrates that the project will enhance the
conservation of neotropical migratory bird species in Latin
America, the Caribbean, or the United States;
(3) includes mechanisms to ensure adequate local public
participation in project development and implementation;
(4) contains assurances that the project will be
implemented in consultation with relevant wildlife management
authorities and other appropriate government officials with
jurisdiction over the resources addressed by the project;
(5) demonstrates sensitivity to local historic and cultural
resources and complies with applicable laws;
(6) describes how the project will promote sustainable,
effective, long-term programs to conserve neotropical
migratory birds; and
(7) provides any other information that the Secretary
considers to be necessary for evaluating the proposal.
(d) Project Reporting.--Each recipient of assistance for a
project under this Act shall submit to the Secretary such
periodic reports as the Secretary considers to be necessary.
Each report shall include all information required by the
Secretary for evaluating the progress and outcome of the
project.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of each
project shall be not greater than 33 percent.
(2) Non-federal share.--
(A) Source.--The non-Federal share required to be paid for
a project shall not be derived from any Federal grant
program.
(B) Form of payment.--
(i) Projects in the united states.--The non-Federal share
required to be paid for a project carried out in the United
States shall be paid in cash.
(ii) Projects in foreign countries.--The non-Federal share
required to be paid for a project carried out in a foreign
country may be paid in cash or in kind.

SEC. 6. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

In carrying out this Act, the Secretary shall--
(1) develop guidelines for the solicitation of proposals
for projects eligible for financial assistance under section
5;
(2) encourage submission of proposals for projects eligible
for financial assistance under section 5, particularly
proposals from relevant wildlife management authorities;
(3) select proposals for financial assistance that satisfy
the requirements of section 5, giving preference to proposals
that address conservation needs not adequately addressed by
existing efforts and that are supported by relevant wildlife
management authorities; and
(4) generally implement this Act in accordance with its
purposes.

SEC. 7. COOPERATION.

(a) In General.--In carrying out this Act, the Secretary
shall--
(1) support and coordinate existing efforts to conserve
neotropical migratory bird species, through--
(A) facilitating meetings among persons involved in such
efforts;
(B) promoting the exchange of information among such
persons;
(C) developing and entering into agreements with other
Federal agencies, foreign, State, and local governmental
agencies, and nongovernmental organizations; and
(D) conducting such other activities as the Secretary
considers to be appropriate; and
(2) coordinate activities and projects under this Act with
existing efforts in order to enhance conservation of
neotropical migratory bird species.
(b) Advisory Group.--
(1) In general.--To assist in carrying out this Act, the
Secretary may convene an advisory group consisting of
individuals representing public and private organizations
actively involved in the conservation of neotropical
migratory birds.
(2) Public participation.--
(A) Meetings.--The advisory group shall--
(i) ensure that each meeting of the advisory group is open
to the public; and
(ii) provide, at each meeting, an opportunity for
interested persons to present oral or written statements
concerning items on the agenda.
(B) Notice.--The Secretary shall provide to the public
timely notice of each meeting of the advisory group.
(C) Minutes.--Minutes of each meeting of the advisory group
shall be kept by the Secretary and shall be made available to
the public.
(3) Exemption from federal advisory committee act.--The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not
apply to the advisory group.

SEC. 8. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

Not later than October 1, 2002, the Secretary shall submit
to Congress a report on the results and effectiveness of the
program carried out under this Act, including recommendations
concerning how the Act might be improved and whether the
program should be continued.

SEC. 9. NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACCOUNT.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the
Multinational Species Conservation Fund of the Treasury a
separate account to be known as the ``Neotropical Migratory
Bird Conservation Account'', which shall consist of amounts
deposited into the Account by the Secretary of the Treasury
under subsection (b).
(b) Deposits Into the Account.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall deposit into the Account--
(1) all amounts received by the Secretary in the form of
donations under subsection (d); and
(2) other amounts appropriated to the Account.
(c) Use.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
may use amounts in the Account, without further Act of
appropriation, to carry out this Act.
(2) Administrative expenses.--Of amounts in the Account
available for each fiscal year, the Secretary may expend not
more than 6 percent to pay the administrative expenses
necessary to carry out this Act.
(d) Acceptance and Use of Donations.--The Secretary may
accept and use donations to carry out this Act. Amounts
received by the Secretary in the form of donations shall be
transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit into
the Account.

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Account to
carry out this Act $8,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000
through 2003, to remain available until expended, of which
not less than 50 percent of the amounts made available for
each fiscal year shall be expended for projects carried out
outside the United States.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join with my
colleagues to introduce the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Act.
First, let me commend my colleague, Senator Abraham, for all of his
work to develop this legislation. This bill addresses some of the
critical threats to wildlife habitat and species diversity and
demonstrates his commitment, which I strongly share, to solving the
many challenges we face in this regard.
The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act will help to ensure
that some of our most valuable and beautiful species of birds--those
that most of us take for granted, including bluebirds, goldfinches,
robins and orioles--may overcome the challenges posed by habitat
destruction and thrive for generations to come. It is not widely
recognized that many North American bird species once considered common
are in decline. In fact, a total of 90 species of migratory birds are
listed as endangered or threatened in the United States, and another
124 species are considered to be of high conservation concern.

[[Page 890]]

The main cause of this decline is the loss of critical habitat
throughout our hemisphere. Because these birds range across
international borders, it is essential that we work with nations in
Latin America and the Caribbean to establish protected stopover areas
during their emigrations. This bill achieves that goal by fostering
partnerships between businesses, nongovernmental organizations and
other nations to bring together the capital and expertise needed to
preserve habitat throughout our hemisphere.
As we begin the 106th Congress, I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation. It has been endorsed by the National Audubon Society, the
American Bird Conservancy and the Ornithological Council. I believe
that it will substantially improve upon our ability to maintain
critical habitat in our hemisphere and help to halt the decline of
these important species.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1999, introduced by Senator Abraham.
The bill would establish a program to provide financial assistance for
projects to promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in
the United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean. An identical bill,
which I also cosponsored, was approved by the Senate during the last
Congress, but failed in the House for reasons unrelated to the bill.
Each autumn, some 5 billion birds from 500 species migrate between
their breeding grounds in North America and tropical habitats in the
Caribbean, Central and South America. These neotropical migrants--or
New World tropical migrants--are birds that migrate between the
biogeographic region stretching across Mexico, Central America, much of
the Caribbean, and the northern part of South America.
The natural challenges facing these migratory birds are profound.
These challenges have been exacerbated by human-induced impacts,
particularly the continuing loss of habitat in the Caribbean and Latin
America. As a result, populations of migratory birds have declined
generally in recent years.
While there are numerous efforts underway to protect these species
and their habitat, they generally focus on specific groups of migratory
birds or specific regions in the Americas. There is a need for a more
comprehensive program to address the varied and significant threats
facing the numerous species of migratory birds across their range.
Frequently there is little, if any, coordination among the existing
programs, nor is there any one program that serves as a link among
them. A broader, more holistic approach would bolster existing
conservation efforts and programs, fill the gaps between these
programs, and promote new initiatives.
The bill we are introducing today encompasses this new approach. It
mandates a program to promote voluntary, collaborative partnerships
among Federal, State, and private organizations. The Federal share can
be no more than 33 percent. The non-Federal share for projects in the
U.S. must be paid in cash, while in projects outside the U.S., the non-
Federal share may be entirely in-kind contributions. The Secretary of
the Interior may establish an advisory group to assist in implementing
the legislation. The success of this initiative will depend on close
coordination with public and private organizations involved in the
conservation of migratory birds. The bill authorizes up to $8 million
annually for appropriations, of which no less than 50 percent can be
spent for projects outside the U.S.
I believe that this bill is a much needed initiative that will fill a
great void in conservation of our nation's wildlife. I urge my
colleagues to cosponsor it.
______

By Mr. KOHL:
S 149. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to
require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the
transfer of a handgun; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

child safety lock act of 1999

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Child Safety Lock Act
of 1999, along with Senators Chafee, Feinstein, Boxer and Durbin. Our
bipartisan measure will save children's lives by reducing the senseless
tragedies that result when improperly stored and unlocked handguns come
within the reach of children.
Each year, nearly 500 children and teenagers are killed in firearms
accidents, and every year 1,500 more children use firearms to commit
suicide. Additionally, about 7,000 violent juvenile crimes are
committed annually with guns which children take from their own homes.
Safety locks can be effective in preventing at least some of these
incidents.
The sad truth is that we are inviting disaster because guns too often
are not being properly stored away from children. Nearly 100 million
privately-owned firearms are stored unlocked, with 22 million of these
guns left unlocked and loaded; twenty-four percent of children between
the ages of 10 and 17 say that they can gain access to a gun in their
home; and the Centers for Disease Control estimate that almost 1.2
million elementary school-aged children return from school to a home
where there is no adult supervision, but at least one firearm.
That is not only wrong, it is unacceptable.
Our legislation will help address this problem. It is simple,
effective and straightforward. It requires that a child safety device--
or trigger lock--be sold with every handgun. These devices vary in
form, but the most common resemble a padlock that wraps around the gun
trigger and immobilizes it. Trigger locks are already used by tens of
thousands of responsible gun owners to protect their firearms from
unauthorized use, and they can be purchased in virtually any gun store
for less than 10 dollars.
This measure gained momentum last Congress, falling short by just one
vote in the Judiciary Committee. Moreover, in part as a result of our
proposal, a majority of the largest handgun manufacturers in the United
States agreed to voluntarily include safety locks with each handgun
they manufacture. Despite this unprecedented voluntary step, though,
our legislation is still needed. Here's why: because some manufacturers
appear to be dragging their feet--an October 1998 study indicated that
eighty percent of the handgun makers who signed onto the voluntary
agreement were not yet providing safety locks. And even if they do
comply, many handguns would likely still not be covered because too
many other manufacturers have refused to sign onto our agreement.
Mr. President, this legislation is necessary to ensure that safety
locks are provided with all handguns, and to keep the pressure on
handgun manufacturers to put safety first. We already protect children
by requiring that seat belts be installed in all automobiles and that
childproof safety caps be provided on medicine bottles. We should be no
less vigilant when it comes to gun safety.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 149

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 Safety Lock Act of
1999''.

SEC. 2. CHILD SAFETY LOCKS.

(a) Definitions.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(35) The term `locking device' means a device or locking
mechanism--
``(A) that--
``(i) if installed on a firearm and secured by means of a
key or a mechanically, electronically, or electromechanically
operated combination lock, is designed to prevent the firearm
from being discharged without first deactivating or removing
the device by means of a key or mechanically, electronically,
or electromechanically operated combination lock;
``(ii) if incorporated into the design of a firearm, is
designed to prevent discharge of the firearm by any person
who does not have access to the key or other device designed
to

[[Page 891]]

unlock the mechanism and thereby allow discharge of the
firearm; or
``(iii) is a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other
device that is designed to store a firearm and that is
designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a
combination, or other similar means; and
``(B) that is approved by a licensed firearms manufacturer
for use on the handgun with which the device or locking
mechanism is sold, delivered, or transferred.''.
(b) Unlawful Acts.--
(1) In general.--Section 922 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the
following:
``(z) Locking Devices.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it
shall be unlawful for any licensed manufacturer, licensed
importer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer
any handgun to any person other than a licensed manufacturer,
licensed importer, or licensed dealer, unless the transferee
is provided with a locking device for that handgun.
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
``(A) the--
``(i) manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the
United States or a State or a department or agency of the
United States, or a State or a department, agency, or
political subdivision of a State, of a firearm; or
``(ii) transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement
officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a
firearm for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off
duty); or
``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police
officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or
commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of
a firearm for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off
duty).''.
(2) Effective date.--Section 922(y) of title 18, United
States Code, as added by this subsection, shall take effect
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Liability; Evidence.--
(1) Liability.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
to--
(A) create a cause of action against any firearms dealer or
any other person for any civil liability; or
(B) establish any standard of care.
(2) Evidence.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with the
amendments made by this section shall not be admissible as
evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or
other entity, except with respect to an action to enforce
this section.
(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to bar a governmental action to impose a penalty
under section 924(p) of title 18, United States Code, for a
failure to comply with section 922(y) of that title.
(d) Civil Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and
inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(p) Penalties Relating to Locking Devices.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Suspension or revocation of license; civil
penalties.--With respect to each violation of section
922(y)(1) by a licensee, the Secretary may, after notice and
opportunity for hearing--
``(i) suspend or revoke any license issued to the licensee
under this chapter; or
``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount
equal to not more than $10,000.
``(B) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this
paragraph may be reviewed only as provided in section 923(f).
``(2) Administrative remedies.--The suspension or
revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty
under paragraph (1) does not preclude any administrative
remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.
______

By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 150. A bill to the relief of Marina Khalina and her son, Albert
Miftakhov; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

private relief bill

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce a measure to bring
critically needed relief to Marina Khalina and her son, Albert
Miftakhov, who suffers from cerebral palsy. Marina and Albert are
Russian immigrants who have made a new home for themselves in the state
of Oregon. They love their new life in America, but they face
deportation unless Congress steps in and helps them become citizens of
this country.
Marina and Albert have been valuable members of their community in
Oregon and would make model citizens. They are both people of
exceptional moral character. Neither has been arrested or convicted of
any crime. Although Albert often has had to miss school for medical
operations, therapy, and other treatments, he consistently has been a
good student. Marina has worked tirelessly in the United States to
support her family and to cover her son's staggering medical costs,
which will include additional surgery in the future. Through hard work,
determination, and courage, Marina has made sure that Albert receives
the medical care he requires.
Forcibly removing them and sending them back to Russia would result
in extreme hardship for both of them and would make it virtually
impossible for Albert to receive proper medical attention. Albert would
be unable to lead a normal life due to the current inability of Russian
society to understand and accommodate disabled persons. Even the most
basic medical treatment, surgical intervention and physical therapy
would be either unavailable or extremely difficult to obtain in Russia.
Although life has not been easy for Marina and Albert, they have both
shown bravery in the face of adversity. This bill will allow Marina and
Albert to stay in the United States so that Albert can receive the care
he needs to lead a normal life. I urge you to support this legislation.
______

By Mr. SARBANES:
S. 151. A bill to amend the International Maritime Satellite
Telecommunications Act to ensure the continuing provision of certain
global satellite safety services after the privatization of the
business operations of the International Mobile Satellite Organization,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

International Maritime Satellite Telecommunications Act Amendments

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
authorize continued U.S. participation in the International Mobile
Satellite Organization, currently known as ``Inmarsat'', during and
after its restructuring, scheduled to take place April 1. The United
States is currently a member of this organization, but its structure
and functions are slated for significant reform. Rather than actually
owning and operating mobile satellite telecommunications facilities,
the intergovernmental institution will retain the much more limited
role of overseeing the provision of global maritime distress and safety
services, ensuring that this important function is carried out properly
and effectively under contract. U.S. participation in the
organization--which will keep the same name but change its acronym to
``IMSO''--will not require a U.S. financial contribution and will not
impose any new legal obligations upon the U.S. government.
Privatization of Inmarsat's commercial satellite business is an
objective broadly shared by the legislative and executive branches,
American businesses, COMSAT, which is the U.S. signatory entity, and
the international community.
To give some brief background, Inmarsat was established in 1979 to
serve the global maritime industry by developing satellite
communications for ship management and distress and safety
applications. Over the past 20 years, Inmarsat has expanded both in
terms of membership and mission. The intergovernmental organization now
counts 85 member countries and has expanded into land-mobile and
aeronautical communications.
Inmarsat's governing bodies, the Assembly of Parties and the Inmarsat
Council, have reached an agreement to restructure the organization, a
move that has been strongly supported and encouraged by the United
States. This restructuring will shift Inmarsat's commercial activities
out of the intergovernmental organization and into a broadly-owned
public corporation by next spring. The new corporation will acquire all
of Inmarsat's operational assets, including its satellites, and will
assume all of Inmarsat's operational functions. All that will remain of
the intergovernmental institution is a scaled-down secretariat with a
small staff to ensure that the new corporation continues to meet
certain public service obligations, such as the Global Maritime
Distress and Safety System (GMDSS). It is important to U.S. interests
that we participate in the oversight of this function, as well as be
fully represented in the organization throughout the process of
privatization.
The legislation I am introducing will enable a smooth transition to
the new

[[Page 892]]

structure. It contains two major provisions. First, it authorizes the
President to maintain U.S. membership in IMSO after restructuring to
ensure the continued provision of global maritime distress and safety
satellite communications services. Second, it repeals those provisions
of the International Maritime Satellite Telecommunications Act that
will be rendered obsolete by the restructuring of Inmarsat, including
all those relating to COMSAT's role as the United States' signatory.
The bill's provisions will take effect on the date that Inmarsat
transfers its commercial operations to the new corporation.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this
measure and ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be
included in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 151

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

SECTION 1. CONTINUING PROVISION OF GLOBAL SATELLITE SAFETY
SERVICES AFTER PRIVATIZATION OF BUSINESS
OPERATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL MOBILE SATELLITE
ORGANIZATION.

(a) Authority.--The International Maritime Satellite
Telecommunications Act (47 U.S.C. 751 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``global satellite safety services after privatization of business
operations of inmarsat

``Sec. 506. In order to ensure the continued provision of
global maritime distress and safety satellite
telecommunications services after the privatization of the
business operations of INMARSAT, the President may maintain
on behalf of the United States membership in the
International Mobile Satellite Organization.''.
(b) Repeal of Superseded Authority.--
(1) Repeal.--That Act is further amended by striking
sections 502, 503, 504, and 505 (47 U.S.C. 751, 752, 753, and
757).
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on the date on which the International
Mobile Satellite Organization ceases to operate directly a
global mobile satellite system.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 152. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase
the tax on handgun ammunition, to impose the special occupational tax
and registration requirements on importers and manufacturers of handgun
ammunition, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

Real Cost of Destruction Ammunition Act

______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 153. A bill to prohibit the use of certain ammunition, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Destructive Ammunition Prohibition Act of 1999

______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 154. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to
the licensing of ammunition manufacturers, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.

Handgun Ammunition Control Act of 1999

______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 155. A bill to provide for the collection and dissemination of
information on injuries, death, and family dissolution due to bullet-
related violence, to require the keeping of records with respect to
dispositions of ammunition, and to increase taxes on certain bullets;
to the Committee on Finance.

Violent Crime Control Act of 1999

______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 156. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code,
to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or importation of .25 caliber
and .32 caliber and 9 millimeter ammunition; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

Violent Crime Reduction Act of 1999

______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 157. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to tax 9
millimeter, .25 caliber, and .32 caliber bullets; to the Committee on
Finance.

Real Cost of Handgun Ammunition Act of 1999

______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 158. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to regulate the
manufacture, importation, and sale of ammunition capable of piercing
police body armor; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Law Enforcement Officers Protection Amendment Act of 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a series of
bills aimed at curtailing gun related violence, one of the leading
causes of death in this country. These bills launch a two-prong
assault. The first seeks to outlaw certain types of ammunition that
have no purpose other than killing people. The second imposes heavy
taxes on these same deadly categories by making them prohibitively
expensive. Similarly, I am proposing that we commission an
epidemiological study on bullet-related violence in this country and
that we enhance the safety of this nation's police officers by
promulgating performance standards for armor piercing ammunition.
My first two bills are called the Destructive Ammunition Prohibition
Act of 1999 and the Real Cost of Destructive Ammunition Act of 1999.
Some of my colleagues may remember the Black Talon. It is a hollow-
tipped bullet, singular among handgun ammunition in its capacity for
destruction. Upon impact with human tissue, the bullet produces razor-
sharp radial petals that produce a devastating wound. It is the very
same bullet that a crazed gunman fired at unsuspecting passengers on a
Long Island Railroad train in December 1993, killing the husband of now
Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy and injuring her son. That same month,
it was also used in the shooting of Officer Jason E. White of the
District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, just 15 blocks
from the Capitol.
I first learned of the Black Talon in a letter I received from Dr.
E.J. Gallagher, director of Emergency Medicine at Albert Einstein
College of Medicine at the Municipal Hospital Trauma Center in the
Bronx. Dr. Gallagher wrote that he has never seen a more lethal
projectile. On November 3, 1993, I introduced a bill to tax the Black
Talon at 10,000 percent. Nineteen days later, Olin Corp., the
manufacturer of the Black Talon, announced that it would withdraw sale
of the bullet to the general public. Unfortunately, the 103rd Congress
came to a close without the bill's having won passage.
As a result, there is nothing in law to prevent the reintroduction of
this pernicious bullet, nor is there any existing impediment to the
sale of similar rounds that might be produced by another manufacturer.
So today I reintroduce the bill to tax the Black Talon as well as a
bill to prohibit the sale of the Black Talon to the public. Both bills
would apply to any bullet with the same physical characteristics as the
Black Talon.
It has been estimated that the cost of hospital services for treating
bullet-related injuries is $1 billion per year, with the total cost to
the economy of such injuries approximately $14 billion. We can ill
afford further increases in this number, but this would surely be the
result if bullets with the destructive capacity of the Black Talon are
allowed onto the streets.
Mr. President, despite the fact that the national crime rate has
decreased in recent months, the number of deaths and injuries caused by
bullet wounds is still at an unconscionable level. It is time we take
meaningful steps to put an end to the massacres that occur daily as a
result of gun violence. How better a beginning than to go after the
most insidious culprits of this violence? I urge my colleagues to
support these measures and to prevent these bullets from appearing on
the market.
My third measure, the Handgun Ammunition Control Act of 1999,
introduces a measure to improve our information about the regulation
and criminal use of ammunition and to prevent the irresponsible
production of ammunition. This bill has three components. First, it
would require importers and manufacturers of ammunition to keep records
and submit an annual report to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms [BATF] on the disposition of ammunition, including the amount,
caliber and type of ammunition imported or manufactured. Second, it

[[Page 893]]

would require the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the
National Academy of Sciences, to conduct a study of ammunition use and
make recommendations on the efficacy of reducing crime by restricting
access to ammunition. Finally, it would amend title 18 of the United
States Code to raise the application fee for a license to manufacture
certain calibers of ammunition.
While there are enough handguns in circulation to last well into the
22nd century, there is perhaps only a 4-year supply of ammunition. But
how much of what kind of ammunition? Where does it come from? Where
does it go? There are currently no reporting requirements for
manufacturers or importers of ammunition; earlier reporting
requirements were repealed in 1986. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Reports, based on information
provided by local law enforcement agencies, does not record the
caliber, type, or quantity of ammunition used in crime. In short, our
data base is woefully inadequate.
I supported the Brady law, which requires a waiting period before the
purchase of a handgun, and the recent ban on semi-automatic weapons.
But while the debate over gun control continues, I offer another
alternative: Ammunition control. After all, as I have said before, guns
do not kill people; bullets do.
Ammunition control is not a new idea. In 1982 Phil Caruso of the New
York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association asked me to do something
about armor-piercing bullets. Jacketed in tungsten or other materials,
these rounds could penetrate four police flak jackets and five Los
Angeles County telephone books. They have no sporting value. I
introduced legislation, the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, to
ban the cop-killer bullets in the 97th, 98th and 99th Congresses. It
enjoyed the overwhelming support of law enforcement groups and,
ultimately, tacit support from the National Rifle Association. It was
finally signed into law by President Reagan on August 28, 1986.
The crime bill enacted in 1994 contained my amendment to broaden the
1986 ban to cover new thick steel-jacketed armor-piercing rounds.
Our cities are becoming more aware of the benefits to be gained from
ammunition control. The District of Columbia and some other cities
prohibit a person from possessing ammunition without a valid license
for a firearm of the same caliber or gauge as the ammunition. Beginning
in 1990, the city of Los Angeles banned the sale of all ammunition 1
week prior to Independence Day and New Year's Day in an effort to
reduce injuries and deaths caused by the firing of guns into the air.
And in September 1994, the city of Chicago became the first in America
to ban the sale of all handgun ammunition.
Such efforts are laudable. But they are isolated attempts to cure
what is in truth a national disease. We need to do more, but to do so,
we need information to guide policy making. This bill would fulfill
that need by requiring annual reports to BATF by manufactures and
importers and by directing a study by the National Academy of Sciences.
We also need to encourage manufacturers of ammunition to be more
responsible. By substantially increasing application fees for licenses
to manufacture .25 caliber, .32 caliber, and 9-mm ammunition, this bill
would discourage the reckless production of unsafe ammunition or
ammunition which causes excessive damage.
My fourth measure provides a comprehensive way of addressing the
epidemic proportions of violence in America.
By including two different crime-related provisions, my bill attacks
the crime epidemic on more than just one front. If we are truly serious
about confronting our Nation's crime problem, we must learn more about
the nature of the epidemic of bullet-related violence and ways to
control it. To do this, we must require records to be kept on the
disposition of ammunition.
In October 1992, the Senate Finance Committee received testimony that
public health and safety experts have, independently, concluded that
there is an epidemic of bullet-related violence. The figures are
staggering.
In 1995, bullets were used in the murders of 23,673 people in the
United States. By focusing on bullets, and not guns, we recognize that
much like nuclear waste, guns remain active for centuries. With minimum
care, they do not deteriorate. However, bullets are consumed. Estimates
suggest we have only a 4-year's supply of them.
Not only am I proposing that we tax bullets used disproportionately
in crimes--9 millimeter, .25 and .32 caliber bullets--I also believe we
must set up a Bullet Death and Injury Control Program within the
Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control. This Center will enhance our knowledge of the distribution and
status of bullet-related death and injury and subsequently make
recommendations about the extent and nature of bullet-related violence.
So that the Center would have substantive information to study and
analyze, this bill also requires importers and manufacturers of
ammunition to keep records and submit an annual report to the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms [BATF] on the disposition of ammunition.
Currently, importers and manufacturers of ammunition are not required
to do so.
My next two bills, the Violent Crime Reduction Act of 1999 and the
Real Cost of Handgun Ammunition Act of 1999, ban or heavily tax .25
caliber, .32 caliber, and 9 mm ammunition. These calibers of bullets
are used disproportionately in crime. They are not sporting or hunting
rounds, but instead are the bullets of choice for drug dealers and
violent felons. Every year they contribute overwhelmingly to the
pervasive loss of life caused by bullet wounds.
Today marks the fifth time in as many Congresses that I have
introduced legislation to ban or tax these pernicious bullets. As the
terrible gunshot death toll in the United States continues unabated, so
too does the need for these bills, which, by keeping these bullets out
of the hands of criminals, would save a significant number of lives.
The number of Americans killed or wounded each year by bullets
demonstrates their true cost to American society. Just look at the
data.
The lifetime risk of death from homicide in U.S. males is 1 in 164,
about the same as the risk of death in battle faced by U.S. servicemen
in the Vietnam war. For black males, the lifetime risk of death from
homicide is 1 in 28, twice the risk of death in battle faced by Marines
in Vietnam.
As noted by Susan Baker and her colleagues in the book Epidemiology
and Health Policy, edited by Sol Levine and Abraham Lilienfeld, there
is a correlation between rates of private ownership of guns and gun-
related death rates; guns cause two-thirds of family homicides, and
small, easily concealed weapons comprise the majority of guns used for
homicides, suicides and unintentional death.
Baker states that:

* * * these facts of the epidemiology of firearm-related
deaths and injuries have important implications. Combined
with their lethality, the widespread availability of easily
concealed handguns for impetuous use by people who are angry,
drunk, or frightened appears to be a major determinant of the
high firearm death rate in the United States. Each
contributing factor has implications for prevention.
Unfortunately, issues related to gun control have evoked such
strong sentiments that epidemiologic data are rarely employed
to good advantage.

Strongly held views on both sides of the gun control issue have made
the subject difficult for epidemiologists. I would suggest that a good
deal of energy is wasted in this never-ending debate, for gun control
as we know it misses the point. We ought to focus on the bullets, not
the guns.
I would remind the Senate of our experience in controlling epidemics.
Although the science of epidemiology traces its roots to antiquity--
Hippocrates stressed the importance of considering environmental
influences on human diseases--the first modern epidemiological study
was conducted by James Lind in 1747. His efforts led to the eventual
control of scurvy. It wasn't until 1795 that the British Navy accepted
his analysis and required

[[Page 894]]

limes in shipboard diets. Most solutions are not perfect. Disease is
rarely eliminated. But might epidemiology be applied in the case of
bullets to reduce suffering? I believe so.
In 1854 John Snow and William Farr collected data that clearly showed
cholera was caused by contaminated drinking water. Snow removed the
handle of the Broad Street pump in London to prevent people from
drawing water from this contaminated water source and the disease
stopped in that population. His observations led to a legislative
mandate that all London water companies filter their water by 1857.
Cholera epidemics subsided. Now treatment of sewage prevents cholera
from entering our rivers and lakes, and the disinfection of drinking
water makes water distribution systems uninhabitable for cholera
vibrio, identified by Robert Koch as the causative agent 26 years after
Snow's study.
In 1900, Walter Reed identified mosquitos as the carriers of yellow
fever. Subsequent mosquito control efforts by another U.S. Army doctor,
William Gorgas, enabled the United States to complete the Panama Canal.
The French failed because their workers were too sick from yellow fever
to work. Now that it is known that yellow fever is caused by a virus,
vaccines are used to eliminate the spread of the disease.
These pioneering epidemiology success stories showed the world that
epidemics require an interaction between three things: the host--(the
person who becomes sick or, in the case of bullets, the shooting
victim); the agent--(the cause of sickness, or the bullet); and the
environment--(the setting in which the sickness occurs or, in the case
of bullets, violent behavior). Interrupt this epidemiological triad and
you reduce or eliminate disease and injury.
How might this approach apply to the control of bullet-related injury
and death? Again, we are contemplating something different from gun
control. There is a precedent here. In the middle of this century it
was recognized that epidemiology could be applied to automobile death
and injury. From a governmental perspective, this hypothesis was first
adopted in 1959, late in the administration of Gov. Averell Harriman of
New York State. In the 1960 Presidential campaign, I drafted a
statement on the subject which was released by Senator John F. Kennedy
as part of a general response to inquiries from the American Automobile
Association. Then Senator Kennedy stated:

Traffic accidents constitute one of the greatest, perhaps
the greatest of the nation's public health problems. They
waste as much as 2 percent of our gross national product
every year and bring endless suffering. The new highways will
do much to control the rise of the traffic toll, but by
themselves they will not reduce it. A great deal more
investigation and research is needed. Some of this has
already begun in connection with the highway program. It
should be extended until highway safety research takes its
place as an equal of the many similar programs of health
research which the federal government supports.

Experience in the 1950's and early 1960's prior to passage of the
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, showed that traffic safety enforcement
campaigns designed to change human behavior did not improve traffic
safety. In fact, the death and injury toll mounted. I was Assistant
Secretary of Labor in the mid-1960's when Congress was developing the
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and I was called to testify.
It was clear to me and others that motor vehicle injuries and deaths
could not be limited by regulating driver behavior. Nonetheless, we had
an epidemic on our hands and we needed to do something about it. My
friend William Haddon, the first Administrator of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, recognized that automobile fatalities
were caused not by the initial collision, when the automobile strikes
some object, but by a second collision, in which energy from the first
collision is transferred to the interior of the car, causing the driver
and occupants to strike the steering wheel, dashboard, or other
structures in the passenger compartment. The second collision is the
agent of injury to the hosts--the car's occupants.
Efforts to make automobiles crashworthy follow examples used to
control infectious disease epidemics. Reduce or eliminate the agent of
injury. Seatbelts, padded dashboards, and airbags are all specifically
designed to reduce, if not eliminate, injury caused by the agent of
automobile injuries, energy transfer to the human body during the
second collision. In fact, we've done nothing revolutionary. All of the
technology used to date to make cars crashworthy, including airbags,
was developed prior to 1970.
Experience shows the approach worked. Of course, it could have worked
better, but it worked. Had we been able to totally eliminate the
agent--the second collision--the cure would have been complete.
Nonetheless, merely by focusing on simple, achievable remedies, we
reduced the traffic death and injury epidemic by 30 percent. Motor
vehicle deaths declined in absolute terms by 13 percent from 1980 to
1990, despite significant increases in the number of drivers, vehicles,
and miles driven. Driver behavior is changing, too. National seatbelt
usage is up dramatically, 60 percent now compared to 14 percent in
1984. These efforts have resulted in some 15,000 lives saved and
100,000 injuries avoided each year.
We can apply that experience to the epidemic of murder and injury
from bullets. The environment in which these deaths and injuries occur
is complex. Many factors likely contribute to the rise in bullet-
related injury. Here is an important similarity with the situation we
faced 25 years ago regarding automobile safety. We found we could not
easily alter the behavior of millions of drivers, but we could--
easily--change the behavior of three or four automobile manufacturers.
Likewise, we simply cannot do much to change the environment--violent
behavior--in which gun-related injury occurs, nor do we know how. We
can, however, do something about the agent causing the injury: bullets.
Ban them. At least the rounds used disproportionately to cause death
and injury; that is, the .25 caliber, .32 caliber, and 9 millimeter
bullets. These three rounds account for the ammunition used in about 13
percent of licensed guns in New York City, yet they are involved in
one-third of all homicides. They are not, as I have said, useful for
sport or hunting. They are used for violence. If we fail to confront
the fact that these rounds are used disproportionately in crimes,
innocent people will continue to die.
I have called on Congress during the past several sessions to ban or
heavily tax these bullets. This would not be the first time that
Congress has banned a particular round of ammunition. In 1986, it
passed legislation written by the Senator from New York banning the so-
called ``cop-killer'' bullet. This round, jacketed with tungsten
alloys, steel, brass, or any number of other metals, had been
demonstrated to penetrate no fewer than four police flak jackets and an
additional five Los Angeles County phone books at one time. In 1982,
the New York Police Benevolent Association came to me and asked me to
do something about the ready availability of these bullets. The result
was the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, which we introduced in
1982, 1983, and for the last time during the 99th Congress. In the end,
with the tacit support of the National Rifle Association, the measure
passed the Congress and was signed by the President as Public Law 99-
408 on August 28, 1986. In the 1994 crime bill, we enacted my amendment
to broaden the ban to include new thick steel-jacketed armor-piercing
rounds.
There are some 220 million firearms in circulation in the United
States today. They are, in essence, simple machines, and with minimal
care, remain working for centuries. However, estimates suggest that we
have only a 4-year supply of bullets. Some 2 billion cartridges are
used each year. At any given time there are some 7.5 billion rounds in
factory, commercial, or household inventory.
In all cases, with the exception of pistol whipping, gun-related
injuries are caused not by the gun, but by the agents involved in the
second collision: the bullets. Eliminating the most dangerous rounds
would not end the problem of handgun killings. But it would

[[Page 895]]

reduce it. A 30-percent reduction in bullet-related deaths, for
instance, would save over 10,000 lives each year and prevent up to
50,000 wounds.
The bills I introduce today would begin the process. They would begin
to control the problem by banning or taxing those rounds used
disproportionately in crime--the .25-caliber, .32-caliber, and 9-
millimeter rounds. The bills recognize the epidemic nature of the
problem, building on findings contained in the June 10, 1992 issue of
the Journal of the American Medical Association which was devoted
entirely to the subject of violence, principally violence associated
with firearms.
My seventh bill introduces legislation today to amend Title 18 of the
United States Code to strengthen the existing prohibition on handgun
ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor, commonly referred
to as bullet-proof vests. This provision would require the Secretary of
the Treasury and the Attorney General to develop a uniform ballistics
test to determine with precision whether ammunition is capable of
penetrating police body armor. The bill also prohibits the manufacture
and sale of any handgun ammunition determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury and the Attorney General to have armor-piercing capability.
Mr. President, it has been seventeen years since I first introduced
legislation in the Senate to outlaw armor-piercing, or ``cop-killer,''
bullets. In 1982, Phil Caruso of the Patrolman's Benevolent Association
of New York City alerted me to the existence of a Teflon-coated bullet
capable of penetrating the soft body armor police officers were then
beginning to wear. Shortly thereafter, I introduced the Law Enforcement
Officers Protection Act of 1982 to prohibit the manufacture,
importation, and sale of such ammunition.
At that time, armor-piercing bullets--most notably the infamous
``Green Hornet''--were manufactured with a solid steel core. Unlike the
softer lead composition of most other ammunition, this hard steel core
prevented these rounds from deforming at the point of impact--thus
permitting the rounds to penetrate the 18 layers of Kevlar in a
standard-issue police vest or ``flak-jacket.'' These bullets could go
through a bullet-proof vest like a hot knife through butter. My
legislation simply banned any handgun ammunition made with a core of
steel or other hard metals.
Despite the strong support of the law enforcement community, it took
four years before this seemingly non-controversial legislation was
enacted into law. The National Rifle Association initially opposed it--
that is, until the NRA realized that a large number of its members were
themselves police officers who strongly supported banning these
insidious bullets. Only then did the NRA lend its grudging support. The
bill passed the Senate on March 6, 1986 by a vote of 97-1, and was
signed by President Reagan on August 8, 1986 (Public Law 99-408).
That 1986 Act served us in good stead for 7 years. To the best of my
knowledge, not a single law enforcement officer was shot with an armor-
piercing bullet. Unfortunately, the ammunition manufacturers eventually
found a way around the 1986 law. By 1993, a new Swedish-made armor-
piercing round, the M39B, had appeared. This pernicious bullet evaded
the 1986 statute's prohibition because of its unique composition. Like
most common ammunition, it had a soft lead core, thus exempting it from
the 1986 law. But this core was surrounded by a heavy steel jacket,
solid enough to allow the bullet to penetrate body armor. Once again,
our nation's law enforcement officers were at risk. Immediately upon
learning of the existence of the new Swedish round, I introduced a bill
to ban it.
Another protracted series of negotiations ensued before we were able
to update the 1986 statute to cover the M39B. We did it with the
support of law enforcement organizations, and with technical assistance
from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. In particular, James
O. Pasco, Jr., then the Assistant Director of Congressional Affairs at
BATF, worked closely with me and my staff to get it done. The bill
passed the Senate by unanimous consent on November 19, 1993 as an
amendment to the 1994 Crime Bill.
Despite these legislative successes, it was becoming evident that
continuing ``innovations'' in bullet design would result in new armor-
piercing rounds capable of evading the ban. It was at this time that
some of us began to explore in earnest the idea of developing a new
approach to banning these bullets based on their performance, rather
than their physical characteristics. Mind, this concept was not
entirely new; the idea had been discussed during our efforts in 1986,
but the NRA had been immovable on the subject. The NRA's leaders, and
their constituent ammunition manufactures, felt that any such broad-
based ban based on a bullets ``performance standard'' would inevitably
lead to the outlawing of additional classes of ammunition. They viewed
it as a slippery slope, much as they have regarded the assault weapons
ban as a slipper slope. The NRA had agreed to the 1986 and 1993 laws
only because they were narrowly drawn to cover individual types of
bullets.
And so in 1993 I asked the ATF for the technical assistance necessary
tow write into law an armor-piercing bullet ``performance standard.''
At the time, however, the experts at the ATF informed us that this
could not be done. They argued that it was simply too difficult to
control for the many variables that contribute to a bullet's capability
to penetrate police body armor. We were told that it might be possible
in the future to develop a performance-based test for armor-piercing
capability, but at the time we had to be content with the existing
content-based approach.
Well. Two years passed and the Office of Law Enforcement Standards of
the National Institute of Standard and Technology wrote a report
describing the methodology for just such a armor-piercing bullet
performance test. The report concluded that a test to determine armor-
piercing capability could be developed within six months.
So we know it can be done, if only the agencies responsible for
enforcing the relevant laws have the will. The legislation I am
introducing requires the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation
with the Attorney General, to establish performance standards for the
uniform testing of handgun ammunition. Such an objective standard will
ensure that no rounds capable of penetrating police body armor,
regardless of their composition, will ever be available to those who
would use them against our law enforcement officers.
I wish to assure the Senate that this measure would in no way
infringe upon the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen. It would
not affect legitimate sporting ammunition used in rifles. It would only
restrict the availability of armor-piercing rounds, for which no one
can seriously claim there is a genuine sporting use. These cop-killer
rounds have no legitimate uses, and they have no business being in the
arsenals of criminals. They are designed for one purpose; to kill
police officers.
The 1986 and 1993 cop-killer bullet laws I sponsored kept us one step
ahead of the designers of new armor-piercing rounds. When the
legislation I have introduced today is enacted--and I hope it will be
early in the 106th Congress--it will put them out of the cop-killer
bullet business permanently.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 152

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 ``Real Cost of Destructive
Ammunition Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN TAX ON HANDGUN AMMUNITION.

(a) Increase in Manufacturers Tax.--
(1) In general.--Section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to imposition of tax on firearms) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``Shells, and cartridges.'' and inserting
``Shells and cartridges not taxable at 10,000 percent.'', and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``Articles taxable at 10,000 percent.--

[[Page 896]]

``Any jacketed, hollow point projectile which may be used
in a handgun and the jacket of which is designed to produce,
upon impact, evenly-spaced sharp or barb-like projections
that extend beyond the diameter of the unfired projectile.''
(2) Additional taxes added to the general fund.--Section
3(a) of the Act of September 2, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 669b(a)),
commonly referred to as the ``Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act'', is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``There shall not be covered into the
fund the portion of the tax imposed by such section 4181 that
is attributable to any increase in amounts received in the
Treasury under such section by reason of the amendments made
by section 2(a)(1) of the Real Cost of Destructive Ammunition
Act, as estimated by the Secretary of the Treasury.''

SEC. 3. SPECIAL TAX FOR IMPORTERS, MANUFACTURERS, AND DEALERS
OF HANDGUN AMMUNITION.

(a) In General.--
(1) Imposition of tax.--Section 5801 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special occupational tax on
importers, manufacturers, and dealers of machine guns,
destructive devices, and certain other firearms) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Special Rule for Handgun Ammunition.--
``(1) In general.--On 1st engaging in business and
thereafter on or before July 1 of each year, every importer
and manufacturer of handgun ammunition shall pay a special
(occupational) tax for each place of business at the rate of
$10,000 a year or fraction thereof.
``(2) Handgun ammunition defined.--For purposes of this
part, the term `handgun ammunition' shall mean any centerfire
cartridge which has a cartridge case of less than 1.3 inches
in length and any cartridge case which is less than 1.3
inches in length.''
(2) Registration of importers and manufacturers of handgun
ammunition.--Section 5802 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to registration of importers, manufacturers,
and dealers) is amended--
(A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, and each
importer and manufacturer of handgun ammunition,'' after
``dealer in firearms'', and
(B) in the third sentence, by inserting ``, and handgun
ammunition operations of an importer or manufacturer,'' after
``dealer''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Chapter heading.--Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to machine guns, destructive devices,
and certain other firearms) is amended in the chapter heading
by inserting ``HANDGUN AMMUNITION,'' after ``CHAPTER 53--''.
(2) Table of chapters.--The heading for chapter 53 in the
table of chapters for subtitle E of such Code is amended to
read as follows:

``Chapter 53--Handgun ammunition, machine guns, destructive devices,
and certain other firearms.''
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
take effect on July 1, 1999.
(2) All taxpayers treated as commencing in business on july
1, 1997.--Any person engaged on July 1, 1999, in any trade or
business which is subject to an occupational tax by reason of
the amendment made by subsection (a)(1) shall be treated for
purposes of such tax as having 1st engaged in a trade of
business on such date.
____

S. 153

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 ``Destructive Ammunition
Prohibition Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

Section 921(a)(17) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(D) The term `destructive ammunition' means any jacketed,
hollow point projectile that may be used in a handgun and the
jacket of which is designed to produce, upon impact, sharp-
tipped, barb-like projections that extend beyond the diameter
of the unfired projectile.''.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION.

Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``or destructive'' after
``armor piercing''; and
(2) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``or destructive'' after
``armor piercing''.
____

S. 154

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 ``Handgun Ammunition Control
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. RECORDS OF DISPOSITION OF AMMUNITION.

(a) Amendment of Title 18, United States Code.--Section
923(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting after the second
sentence the following: ``Each licensed importer and
manufacturer of ammunition shall maintain such records of
importation, production, shipment, sale, or other disposition
of ammunition at the place of business of such importer or
manufacturer for such period and in such form as the
Secretary may by regulations prescribe. Such records shall
include the amount, caliber, and type of ammunition.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) Each licensed importer or manufacturer of ammunition
shall annually prepare a summary report of imports,
production, shipments, sales, and other dispositions during
the preceding year. The report shall be prepared on a form
specified by the Secretary, shall include the amounts,
calibers, and types of ammunition that were disposed of, and
shall be forwarded to the office specified thereon not later
than the close of business on the date specified by the
Secretary.''.
(b) Study of Criminal Use and Regulation of Ammunition.--
The Secretary of the Treasury shall request the National
Academy of Sciences to--
(1) prepare, in consultation with the Secretary, a study of
the criminal use and regulation of ammunition; and
(2) submit to Congress, not later than July 31, 1998, a
report with recommendations on the potential for preventing
crime by regulating or restricting the availability of
ammunition.

SEC. 3. INCREASE IN LICENSING FEES FOR MANUFACTURERS OF
AMMUNITION.

Section 923(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (D) as
subparagraphs (B) through (E), respectively; and
(2) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as redesignated,
the following:
``(A) of .25 caliber, .32 caliber, or 9 mm ammunition, a
fee of $10,000 per year;''.
____

S. 155

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 ``Violent Crime Control Act of
1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) there is no reliable information on the amount of
ammunition available;
(2) importers and manufacturers of ammunition are not
required to keep records to report to the Federal Government
on ammunition imported, produced, or shipped;
(3) the rate of bullet-related deaths in the United States
is unacceptably high and growing;
(4) three calibers of bullets are used disproportionately
in crime: 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, and .32 caliber bullets;
(5) injury and death are greatest in young males, and
particularly young black males;
(6) epidemiology can be used to study bullet-related death
and injury to evaluate control options;
(7) bullet-related death and injury has placed increased
stress on the American family resulting in increased welfare
expenditures under title IV of the Social Security Act;
(8) bullet-related death and injury have contributed to the
increase in medicaid expenditures under title XIX of the
Social Security Act;
(9) bullet-related death and injury have contributed to
increased supplemental security income benefits under title
XVI of the Social Security Act;
(10) a tax on the sale of bullets will help control bullet-
related death and injury;
(11) there is no central responsible agency for trauma,
there is relatively little funding available for the study of
bullet-related death and injury, and there are large gaps in
research programs to reduce injury;
(12) current laws and programs relevant to the loss of life
and productivity from bullet-related trauma are inadequate to
protect the citizens of the United States; and
(13) increased research in bullet-related violence is
needed to better understand the causes of such violence, to
develop options for controlling such violence, and to
identify and overcome barriers to implementing effective
controls.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to increase the tax on the sale of 9 millimeter, .25
caliber, and .32 caliber bullets (except with respect to any
sale to law enforcement agencies) as a means of reducing the
epidemic of bullet-related death and injury;
(2) to undertake a nationally coordinated effort to survey,
collect, inventory, synthesize, and disseminate adequate data
and information for--
(A) understanding the full range of bullet-related death
and injury, including impacts on the family structure and
increased demands for benefit payments under provisions of
the Social Security Act;
(B) assessing the rate and magnitude of change in bullet-
related death and injury over time;
(C) educating the public about the extent of bullet-related
death and injury; and
(D) expanding the epidemiologic approach to evaluate
efforts to control bullet-related death and injury and other
forms of violence;
(3) to develop options for controlling bullet-related death
and injury;

[[Page 897]]

(4) to build the capacity and encourage responsibility at
the Federal, State, community, group, and individual levels
for control and elimination of bullet-related death and
injury; and
(5) to promote a better understanding of the utility of the
epidemiologic approach for evaluating options to control or
reduce death and injury from nonbullet-related violence.
TITLE I--BULLET DEATH AND INJURY CONTROL PROGRAM

SEC. 101. BULLET DEATH AND INJURY CONTROL PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--There is established within the Centers
for Disease Control's National Center for Injury Prevention
and Control (referred to as the ``Center'') a Bullet Death
and Injury Control Program (referred to as the ``Program'').
(b) Purpose.--The Center shall conduct research into and
provide leadership and coordination for--
(1) the understanding and promotion of knowledge about the
epidemiologic basis for bullet-related death and injury
within the United States;
(2) developing technically sound approaches for
controlling, and eliminating, bullet-related deaths and
injuries;
(3) building the capacity for implementing the options, and
expanding the approaches to controlling death and disease
from bullet-related trauma; and
(4) educating the public about the nature and extent of
bullet-related violence.
(c) Functions.--The functions of the Program shall be--
(1) to summarize and to enhance the knowledge of the
distribution, status, and characteristics of bullet-related
death and injury;
(2) to conduct research and to prepare, with the assistance
of State public health departments--
(A) statistics on bullet-related death and injury;
(B) studies of the epidemic nature of bullet-related death
and injury; and
(C) data on the status of the factors, including legal,
socioeconomic, and other factors, that bear on the control of
bullets and the eradication of the bullet-related epidemic;
(3) to publish information about bullet-related death and
injury and guides for the practical use of epidemiological
information, including publications that synthesize
information relevant to national goals of understanding the
bullet-related epidemic and methods for its control;
(4) to identify socioeconomic groups, communities, and
geographic areas in need of study, develop a strategic plan
for research necessary to comprehend the extent and nature of
bullet-related death and injury, and determine what options
exist to reduce or eradicate such death and injury;
(5) to provide for the conduct of epidemiologic research on
bullet-related death and injury through grants, contracts,
cooperative agreements, and other means, by Federal, State,
and private agencies, institutions, organizations, and
individuals;
(6) to make recommendations to Congress, the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and other Federal, State, and
local agencies on the technical management of data
collection, storage, and retrieval necessary to collect,
evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information about the
extent and nature of the bullet-related epidemic of death and
injury as well as options for its control;
(7) to make recommendations to Congress, the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and other Federal, State, and
local agencies, organizations, and individuals about options
for actions to eradicate or reduce the epidemic of bullet-
related death and injury;
(8) to provide training and technical assistance to the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and other Federal,
State, and local agencies regarding the collection and
interpretation of bullet-related data; and
(9) to research and explore bullet-related death and injury
and options for its control.
(d) Advisory Board.--
(1) In general.--The Center shall have an independent
advisory board to assist in setting the policies for and
directing the Program.
(2) Membership.--The advisory board shall consist of 13
members, including--
(A) 1 representative from the Centers for Disease Control;
(B) 1 representative from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms;
(C) 1 representative from the Department of Justice;
(D) 1 member from the Drug Enforcement Agency;
(E) 3 epidemiologists from universities or nonprofit
organizations;
(F) 1 criminologist from a university or nonprofit
organization;
(G) 1 behavioral scientist from a university or nonprofit
organization;
(H) 1 physician from a university or nonprofit
organization;
(I) 1 statistician from a university or nonprofit
organization;
(J) 1 engineer from a university or nonprofit organization;
and
(K) 1 public communications expert from a university or
nonprofit organization.
(3) Terms.--Members of the advisory board shall serve for
terms of 5 years, and may serve more than 1 term.
(4) Compensation of members.--Each member of the Commission
who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government
shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of
the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties
of the Commission. All members of the Commission who are
officers or employees of the United States shall serve
without compensation in addition to that received for their
services as officers or employees of the United States.
(5) Travel expenses.--A member of the advisory board that
is not otherwise in the Federal Government service shall, to
the extent provided for in advance in appropriations Acts, be
paid actual travel expenses and per diem in lieu of
subsistence expenses in accordance with section 5703 of title
5, United States Code, when the member is away from the
member's usual place of residence.
(6) Chair.--The members of the advisory board shall select
1 member to serve as chair.
(e) Consultation.--The Center shall conduct the Program
required under this section in consultation with the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the Department of
Justice.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000,
$2,500,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $5,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004 for the purpose of carrying
out this section.
(g) Report.--The Center shall prepare an annual report to
Congress on the Program's findings, the status of
coordination with other agencies, its progress, and problems
encountered with options and recommendations for their
solution. The report for December 31, 2000, shall contain
options and recommendations for the Program's mission and
funding levels for the fiscal years 2000 through 2004, and
beyond.
TITLE II--INCREASE IN EXCISE TAX ON CERTAIN BULLETS

SEC. 201. INCREASE IN TAX ON CERTAIN BULLETS.

(a) In General.--Section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to the imposition of tax on firearms, etc.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``In the case of 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, or .32 caliber
ammunition, the rate of tax under this section shall be 1,000
percent.''.
(b) Exemption for Law Enforcement Purposes.--Section 4182
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemptions)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Law Enforcement.--The last sentence of section 4181
shall not apply to any sale (not otherwise exempted) to, or
for the use of, the United States (or any department, agency,
or instrumentality thereof) or a State or political
subdivision thereof (or any department, agency, or
instrumentality thereof).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to sales after December 31, 1999.
TITLE III--USE OF AMMUNITION

SEC. 301. RECORDS OF DISPOSITION OF AMMUNITION.

(a) Amendment of Title 18, United States Code.--Section
923(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting after the second
sentence the following: ``Each licensed importer and
manufacturer of ammunition shall maintain such records of
importation, production, shipment, sale, or other disposition
of ammunition at the licensee's place of business for such
period and in such form as the Secretary, in consultation
with the Director of the National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control
(for the purpose of ensuring that the information that is
collected is useful for the Bullet Death and Injury Control
Program), may by regulation prescribe. Such records shall
include the amount, caliber, and type of ammunition.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) Each licensed importer or manufacturer of ammunition
shall annually prepare a summary report of imports,
production, shipments, sales, and other dispositions during
the preceding year. The report shall be prepared on a form
specified by the Secretary, in consultation with the Director
of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of
the Centers for Disease Control (for the purpose of ensuring
that the information that is collected is useful for the
Bullet Death and Injury Control Program), shall include the
amounts, calibers, and types of ammunition that were disposed
of, and shall be forwarded to the office specified thereon
not later than the close of business on the date specified by
the Secretary.''.
(b) Study of Criminal Use and Regulation of Ammunition.--
The Secretary of the Treasury shall request the Centers for
Disease Control to--
(1) prepare, in consultation with the Secretary, a study of
the criminal use and regulation of ammunition; and

[[Page 898]]

(2) submit to Congress, not later than July 31, 1998, a
report with recommendations on the potential for preventing
crime by regulating or restricting the availability of
ammunition.
____

S. 156

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 ``Violent Crime Reduction Act
of 1999''.

SEC. 2. UNLAWFUL ACTS.

Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by in paragraph (8), by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) for any person to manufacture, transfer, or import
.25 or .32 caliber or 9 millimeter ammunition, except that
this paragraph shall not apply to--
``(A) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition for
the use of the United States or any department or agency
thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political
subdivision thereof; and
``(B) any manufacture or importation for testing or for
experimenting authorized by the Secretary; and
``(10) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver
.25 or .32 caliber or 9 millimeter ammunition, except that
this paragraph shall not apply to--
``(A) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of
such ammunition for the use of the United States or any
department or agency thereof or any State or any department,
agency, or political subdivision thereof; and
``(B) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of
such ammunition for testing or for experimenting authorized
by the Secretary.''.

SEC. 3. LICENSING OF DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES.

Section 923(a)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) of destructive devices, ammunition for destructive
devices, armor piercing ammunition, or .25 or .32 caliber or
9 millimeter ammunition, a fee of $1,000 per year;''.

SEC. 4. LICENSING OF NONDESTRUCTIVE DEVICES.

Section 923(a)(1)(C) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(C) of ammunition for firearms other than destructive
devices, or armor piercing or .25 or .32 caliber or 9
millimeter ammunition for any firearm, a fee of $10 per
year.''.

SEC. 5. IMPORTERS.

Section 923(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) If the applicant is an importer--
``(A) of destructive devices, ammunition for destructive
devices, or armor piercing or .25 or .32 caliber or 9
millimeter ammunition for any firearm, a fee of $1,000 per
year; or
``(B) of firearms other than destructive devices or
ammunition for firearms other than destructive devices, or
ammunition other than armor piercing or .25 or .32 caliber or
9 millimeter ammunition for any firearm, a fee of $50 per
year.''.

SEC. 6. MARKING AMMUNITION AND PACKAGES.

Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(m) Licensed importers and licensed manufacturers shall
mark all .25 and .32 caliber and 9 millimeter ammunition and
packages containing such ammunition for distribution, in the
manner prescribed by the Secretary by regulation.''.

SEC. 7. USE OF RESTRICTED AMMUNITION.

Section 929(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by--
(1) inserting ``, or with .25 or .32 caliber or 9
millimeter ammunition,'' after ``possession of armor piercing
ammunition''; and
(2) inserting ``, or .25 or .32 caliber or 9 millimeter
ammunition,'' after ``armor-piercing handgun ammunition''.

SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect on the first day of the first calendar month that
begins more than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act.
____

S. 157

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 ``Real Cost of Handgun
Ammunition Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN TAX ON CERTAIN BULLETS.

(a) In General.--Section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to the imposition of tax on firearms, etc.)
is amended by adding at the end the following new flush
sentence:
``In the case of 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, or .32 caliber
ammunition, the rate of tax under this section shall be 1,000
percent.''
(b) Exemption for Law Enforcement Purposes.--Section 4182
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemptions)
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Law Enforcement.--The last sentence of section 4181
shall not apply to any sale (not otherwise exempted) to, or
for the use of, the United States (or any department, agency,
or instrumentality thereof) or a State or political
subdivision thereof (or any department, agency, or
instrumentality thereof).''
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to sales after December 31, 1999.
____

S. 158

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement Officers
Protection Amendment Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF THE DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING
AMMUNITION.

Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
(2) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that
the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the
Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to
be capable of penetrating body armor.''.

SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF ARMOR PIERCING CAPABILITY OF
PROJECTILES.

Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations
based on standards to be developed by the Secretary of the
Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, for the
uniform testing of projectiles to determine whether such
projectiles are capable of penetrating National Institute of
Justice Level II-A body armor.''.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary for the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney
General to--
(1) develop and implement performance standards for armor
piercing ammunition; and
(2) promulgate regulations for performance standards for
armor piercing ammunition.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 159. A bill to amend chapter 121 of title 28, United States Code,
to increase fees paid to Federal jurors, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

increase the fees paid to federal jurors

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill aimed
at raising the fee Federal jurors are paid to that of $45.00 per day.
According to the current statute, Federal jurors are paid $40.00 per
day for the first thirty days of a trial and $50.00 for each day
thereafter. They also receive $3.00 a day for transportation costs. The
$40.00 per day a juror receives for his or her all day service is below
the prevailing minimum wage, and the daily $3.00 transportation fee
falls far below that required for parking or riding a bus or the
subway.
These inadequate sums place an undue hardship on those jurors who
most need compensation: the self-employed, the commissioned, the
temporary workers, and those who work for small employers often making
it difficult for litigants to have representative jury panels. While
undue hardship is often grounds for deferral or excusal from jury duty,
it is important that we limit the financial hardship for those of our
citizens engaged in this most important civic duty.
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. 159

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

SECTION 1. JUROR FEES.

Section 1871(b)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``of $40 per day'' and inserting ``$45
per day.''
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 160. A bill to authorize the Architect of the Capitol to develop
and implement a plan to improve the Capitol grounds through the
elimination and modification of space alloted for parking; to the
Committee on Rules and Administration.

arc of park capitol grounds improvement act of 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, just over 98 years ago, in March 1901,
the

[[Page 899]]

Senate Committee on the District of Columbia was directed by Senate
Resolution to ``report to the Senate plans for the development and
improvement of the entire park system of the District of Columbia * * *
(F)or the purpose of preparing such plans the committee * * * may
secure the services of such experts as may be necessary for a proper
consideration of the subject.''
And secure ``such experts'' the committee assuredly did. The
Committee formed what came to be known as the McMillan Commission,
named for committee chairman, Senator James McMillan of Michigan. The
Commission's membership was a ``who's who'' of late 19th and early 20th
century architecture, landscape design, and art: Daniel Burnham,
Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., Charles F. McKim, and Augustus St. Gaudens.
The Commission traveled that summer to Rome, Venice, Vienna, Budapest,
Paris, and London, studying the landscapes, architecture, and public
spaces of the grandest cities in the world. The McMillan Commission
returned and fashioned the city of Washington as we now know it.
We are particularly indebted today for the Commission's preservation
of the Mall. When the members left for Europe, the Congress had just
given the Pennsylvania Railroad a 400-foot wide swath of the Mall for a
new station and trackage. It is hard to imagine our city without the
uninterrupted stretch of greenery from the Capitol to the Washington
Monument, but such would have been the result. Fortunately, when in
London, Daniel Burnham was able to convince Pennsylvania Railroad
president Cassatt that a site on Massachusetts Avenue would provide a
much grander entrance to the city. President Cassatt assented and
Daniel Burnham gave us Union Station.
But the focus of the Commission's work was the District's park
system. The Commission noted in its report:

Aside from the pleasure and the positive benefits to health
that the people derive from public parks, in a capital city
like Washington there is a distinct use of public spaces as
the indispensable means of giving dignity to Government
buildings and of making suitable connections between the
great departments . . . (V)istas and axes; sites for
monuments and museums; parks and pleasure gardens; fountains
and canals; in a word all that goes to make a city a
magnificent and consistent work of art were regarded as
essential in the plans made by L'Enfant under the direction
of the first President and his Secretary of State.

Washington and Jefferson might be disappointed at the affliction now
imposed on much of the Capitol Grounds by the automobile.
Despite the ready and convenient availability of the city's Metrorail
system, an extraordinary number of Capitol Hill employees drive to
work. No doubt many must. But must we provide free parking? If there is
one lesson learned from the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991, it is that free goods are always wasted. Free
parking is a most powerful incentive to drive to work when the
alternative is to pay for public transportation. Furthermore, much as
expenses rise to meet income, newly provided parking spaces are
instantly filled. At the foot of Pennsylvania Avenue is a scar of
angle-parked cars, in parking spaces made available temporarily during
construction of the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building. Once
completed, spaces in the building's garage would be made available to
Senate employees and Pennsylvania Avenue would be restored. Not so. The
demand for spaces has simply risen to meet the available supply, and
the unit block of the Nation's main street remains a disaster.
Today, I am introducing legislation to improve the Capitol Grounds
through the near-complete elimination of surface parking. As the
Architect of the Capitol eliminates these unsightly lots, they will be
reconstructed as public parks, landscaped in the fashion of the Capitol
Grounds. I envision what I call an arc of park sweeping around the
Capitol from Second Street, Northeast, around to the Capitol Reflecting
Pool, and thence back to First Street, Southeast. Delaware Avenue
between Columbus Circle and Constitution Avenue would be closed to
traffic and rebuilt as a pedestrian walkway, a grand pathway to the
Capitol from Union Station.
Finally, there is still the matter of parking. This legislation
authorizes the Architect of the Capitol to construct underground
parking facilities, as needed. These facilities, which will undoubtedly
be expensive, will be financed simply by charging for the parking, a
legitimate user fee.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 160

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 ``Arc of Park Capitol Grounds
Improvement Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. CAPITOL GROUNDS IMPROVEMENT PLAN.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Architect of the Capitol shall
develop and begin implementation of a comprehensive plan
(referred to as the ``comprehensive plan'') for the
improvement of the grounds of the United States Capitol as
described in section 193a of title 40, United States Code.
(b) Arc of Park.--The comprehensive plan shall--
(1) be consistent with the 1981 Report on the ``Master Plan
for the Future Development of the Capitol Grounds and Related
Areas'' prepared in accordance with Public Law 94-59 (July
25, 1975); and
(2) result in an ``arc of park'' sweeping from Second
Street, Northeast to the Capitol Reflecting Pool to First
Street, Southeast, with the Capitol Building as its
approximate center.
(c) Details.--The comprehensive plan shall provide for, at
a minimum--
(1) elimination of all current surface parking areas,
excepting those areas which provide on-street parallel
parking spaces;
(2) replacement of off-street surface parking areas with
public parks landscaped in a fashion appropriate to the
United States Capitol grounds;
(3) reconstruction of Delaware Avenue, Northeast, between
Columbus Circle and Constitution Avenue as a thoroughfare
available principally to pedestrians as contemplated by the
Master Plan;
(4) elimination of all but parallel parking on Pennsylvania
Avenue, between First and Third Streets, Northwest;
(5) to the greatest extent practical, continuation of the
Pennsylvania Avenue tree line onto United States Capitol
Grounds and implementation of other appropriate landscaping
measures necessary to conform Pennsylvania Avenue between
First and Third Streets, Northwest, to the aesthetic
guidelines adopted by the Pennsylvania Avenue Development
Corporation;
(6) closure of Maryland Avenue to through traffic between
First and Third Streets, Southwest, consistent with
appropriate access to and visitor parking for the United
States Botanic Garden; and
(7) construction of additional underground parking
facilities, as needed, with--
(A) the cost of construction and operation of such parking
facilities defrayed to the greatest extent practical by
charging appropriate usage fees, including time-of-day fees;
and
(B) the parking facilities being made available to the
general public, with priority given to employees of the
Congress.

SEC. 3. APPLICABLE LOCAL LAW.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the
construction and operation of any improvements under this Act
shall not be subject to--
(1) any law of the District of Columbia or any State or
locality relating to taxes on sales, real estate, personal
property, special assessments, uses, or any other interest or
transaction (including Federal law); or
(2) any law of the District of Columbia relating to use,
occupancy, or construction, including building costs,
permits, or inspection requirements (including Federal law).
(b) Limitation.--The Architect of the Capitol shall comply
with appropriate recognized national life safety and building
codes in undertaking such construction and operation.

SEC. 4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL.

The Architect of the Capitol--
(1) shall be responsible for the structural, mechanical,
and custodial care and maintenance of the facilities
constructed under this Act and may discharge such
responsibilities directly or by contract; and
(2) may permit the extension of steam and chilled water
from the Capitol Power Plant on a reimbursable basis to any
facilities or improvements constructed under this Act as a
cost of such improvements.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 161. A bill to provide for a transition to market-based rates for
power

[[Page 900]]

sold by the Federal Power Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee
Valley Authority, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.

power marketing administration reform act of 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Power Marketing
Administration Reform Act of 1999, a bill to require that the Federal
Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) and the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) sell electricity at market rates and recover all costs.
Mr. President, in 1935 only 15 percent of rural Americans had access
to electricity. President Roosevelt's administration established the
PMAs to sell power to rural Americans below market rates because so
many rural areas could not afford to install the transmission and
generation equipment required to provide electricity. Commencement of
the massive public works projects such as TVA filled a desperate need
for jobs during the Depression years and brought electricity to the
many areas of our country which lacked access to this most basic
amenity of modern life.
The PMAs served an essential function in lifting our nation out of
the Depression, Mr. President, but that time has passed. Sixty years
after its inception, public power is less expensive and more accessible
than ever before. The discounted rates provided by public power are a
benefit which goes to a relatively few recipients at a tremendous
expense to the American taxpayer. Nearly 60 percent of Federal sales go
to just four states: Tennessee, Alabama, Washington, and Oregon. PMAs
have failed to recover their operating costs for too long, and it is
taxpayers who bear the cost of the discrepancy between cost of
generation and consumer rates. This discrepancy has brought about a
fiscal shortfall and significant environmental damage.
Reports over past years from the General Accounting Office (GAO), the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the Inspector General of the
U.S. Department of Energy confirm this view. In 1997, for instance, the
GAO reported that the Bonneville Power Administration, the Rural
Utilities Service, and three other PMAs cost American taxpayers $2.5
billion in fiscal year 1996. In March 1998 the GAO showed that the
Federal government incurred a net cost of $1.5 billion from
electricity-related activities in the Southeastern, Southwestern, and
Western PMAs between 1992 and 1996. Up to $1.4 billion of the
approximately $7 billion of Federal investment in assets derived from
electricity-related activities in these PMAs is at risk of nonrecovery.
The GAO has also reported on fairness in lending to the PMAs. The
Federal Treasury incurs approximately 9 percent in debt when lending to
the PMAs, but recovers only 3.5 percent from the PMAs on their
outstanding debt. This is a loss to the U.S. Treasury of 5.5 percent on
interest payments alone. It is taxpayers who are required to account
for this interest shortfall.
Mr. President, my bill would provide for full cost recovery rates for
power sold by the PMAs and the TVA. Under the bill, PMA and TVA rates
would be recalculated to conform to market rates and be resubmitted to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for approval. The bill
would also require that PMA and TVA transmission facilities are subject
to open-access regulation by the FERC, and that FERC would be
authorized to revise such rates when necessary to maintain a
competitive environment. Cooperatives and public power entities will be
given the right of first refusal of PMA and TVA power at market prices.
Revenue accrued from the revisal of these rates will go first to the
U.S. Treasury to recover all costs. The residual amount will then be
disbursed by formula to the Treasury to mitigate damage to the
environment attributed to the operation of PMAs and the TVA, and to
support renewable electricity generating resources.
Mr. President, the time has come for public power to be held
accountable for the use of public dollars. I urge my colleagues to join
me in supporting this legislation.
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. 161

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 ``Power Marketing
Administration Reform Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the use of fixed allocations of joint multipurpose
project costs and the failure to provide for the recovery of
actual interest costs and depreciation have resulted in--
(A) substantial failures to recover costs properly
recoverable through power rates by the Federal Power
Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee Valley Authority;
and
(B) the imposition of unreasonable burdens on the taxpaying
public;
(2) existing underallocations and underrecovery of costs
have led to inefficiencies in the marketing of Federally
generated electric power and to environmental damage; and
(3) with the emergence of open access to power transmission
and competitive bulk power markets, market prices will
provide the lowest reasonable rates consistent with--
(A) sound business principles;
(B) maximum recovery of costs properly allocated to power
production; and
(C) encouraging the most widespread use of power marketed
by the Federal Power Marketing Administrations and the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to provide
for--
(1) full cost recovery rates for power sold by the Federal
Power Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee Valley
Authority; and
(2) a transition to market-based rates for the power.

SEC. 3. SALE OR DISPOSITION OF FEDERAL POWER BY FEDERAL POWER
MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS AND THE TENNESSEE
VALLEY AUTHORITY.

(a) Accounting.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, shall develop and
implement procedures to ensure that the Federal Power
Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee Valley Authority
use the same accounting principles and requirements
(including the accounting principles and requirements with
respect to the accrual of actual interest costs during
construction and pending repayment for any project and
recognition of depreciation expenses) as are applied by the
Commission to the electric operations of public utilities.
(b) Development and Submission of Rates to the
Commission.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act and periodically thereafter but not less frequently
than once every 5 years, each Federal Power Marketing
Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority shall
submit to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a
description of proposed rates for the sale or disposition of
Federal power that will ensure the recovery of all costs
incurred by the Federal Power Marketing Administration or the
Tennessee Valley Authority, respectively, for the generation
and marketing of the Federal power.
(2) Costs to be recovered.--The costs to be recovered under
paragraph (1)--
(A) shall include all fish and wildlife expenditures
required under treaty and legal obligations associated with
the construction and operation of the facilities from which
the Federal power is generated and sold; and
(B) shall not include any cost of transmitting the Federal
power.
(c) Commission Review, Approval, or Modification.--
(1) In general.--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
shall review and either approve or modify rates for the sale
or disposition of Federal power submitted to the Commission
by each Federal Power Marketing Administration and the
Tennessee Valley Authority under this section, in a manner
that ensures that the rates will recover all costs described
in subsection (b)(2).
(2) Basis for review.--The review by the Commission under
paragraph (1) shall be based on the record of proceedings
before the Federal Power Marketing Administration or the
Tennessee Valley Authority, except that the Commission shall
afford all affected persons an opportunity for an additional
hearing in accordance with the procedures established for
ratemaking by the Commission under the Federal Power Act (16
U.S.C. 791a et seq.).
(d) Application of Rates.--
(1) In general.--Beginning on the date of approval or
modification by the Commission of rates under this section,
each Federal Power Marketing Administration and the Tennessee
Valley Authority shall apply the rates, as approved or
modified by the Commission, to each existing contract for the

[[Page 901]]

sale or disposition of Federal power by the Federal Power
Marketing Administration or the Tennessee Valley Authority to
the maximum extent permitted by the contract.
(2) Applicability.--This section shall cease to apply to a
Federal Power Marketing Administration or the Tennessee
Valley Authority as of the date of termination of all
commitments under any contract for the sale or disposition of
Federal power that were in existence as of the date of
enactment of this Act.
(e) Accounting Principles and Requirements.--In developing
or reviewing the rates required by this section, the Federal
Power Marketing Administrations, the Tennessee Valley
Authority, and the Commission shall rely on the accounting
principles and requirements developed under subsection (a).
(f) Interim Rates.--Until market pricing for the sale or
disposition of Federal power by a Federal Power Marketing
Administration or the Tennessee Valley Authority is fully
implemented, the full cost recovery rates required by this
section shall apply to--
(1) a new contract entered into after the date of enactment
of this Act for the sale of power by a Federal Power
Marketing Administrator or the Tennessee Valley Authority;
and
(2) a renewal after the date of enactment of this Act of an
existing contract for the sale of power by a Federal Power
Marketing Administration or the Tennessee Valley Authority.
(g) Transition to Market-Based Rates.--
(1) In general.--If the transition to full cost recovery
rates would result in rates that exceed market rates, the
Secretary of Energy may approve rates for power sold by
Federal Power Marketing Administrations at market rates, and
the Tennessee Valley Authority may approve rates for power
sold by the Tennessee Valley Authority at market rates, if--
(A) operation and maintenance costs are recovered,
including all fish and wildlife costs required under existing
treaty and legal obligations;
(B) the contribution toward recovery of investment
pertaining to power production is maximized; and
(C) purchasers of power under existing contracts consent to
the remarketing by the Federal Power Marketing Administration
or the Tennessee Valley Authority of the power through
competitive bidding not later than 3 years after the approval
of the rates.
(2) Competitive bidding.--Competitive bidding shall be used
to remarket power that is subject to, but not sold in
accordance with, paragraph (1).
(h) Market-Based Pricing.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall develop
and implement procedures to ensure that all power sold by
Federal Power Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee
Valley Authority is sold at prices that reflect demand and
supply conditions within the relevant bulk power supply
market.
(2) Bid and auction procedures.--The Secretary of Energy
shall establish by regulation bid and auction procedures to
implement market-based pricing for power sold under any power
sales contract entered into by a Federal Power Marketing
Administration or the Tennessee Valley Authority after the
date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act,
including power that is under contract but that is declined
by the party entitled to purchase the power and remarketed
after that date.
(i) Use of Revenue Collected Through Market-Based
Pricing.--
(1) In general.--Revenue collected through market-based
pricing shall be disposed of as follows:
(A) Revenue for operations, fish and wildlife, and project
costs.--Revenue shall be remitted to the Secretary of the
Treasury to cover--
(i) all power-related operations and maintenance expenses;
(ii) all fish and wildlife costs required under existing
treaty and legal obligations; and
(iii) the project investment cost pertaining to power
production.
(B) Remaining revenue.--Revenue that remains after
remission to the Secretary of the Treasury under subparagraph
(A) shall be disposed of as follows:
(i) Federal budget deficit.--50 percent of the revenue
shall be remitted to the Secretary of the Treasury for the
purpose of reducing the Federal budget deficit.
(ii) Fund for environmental mitigation and restoration.--35
percent of the revenue shall be deposited in the fund
established under paragraph (2)(A).
(iii) Fund for renewable resources.--15 percent of the
revenue shall be deposited in the fund established under
paragraph (3)(A).
(2) Fund for environmental mitigation and restoration.--
(A) Establishment.--
(i) In general.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a fund to be known as the ``Fund for
Environmental Mitigation and Restoration'' (referred to in
this paragraph as the ``Fund''), consisting of funds
allocated under paragraph (1)(B)(ii).
(ii) Administration.--The Fund shall be administered by a
Board of Directors consisting of the Secretary of the
Interior, the Secretary of Energy, and the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, or their designees.
(B) Use.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available for making
expenditures--
(i) to carry out project-specific plans to mitigate damage
to, and restore the health of, fish, wildlife, and other
environmental resources that is attributable to the
construction and operation of the facilities from which power
is generated and sold; and
(ii) to cover all costs incurred in establishing and
administering the Fund.
(C) Project-specific plans.--
(i) In general.--The Board of Directors of the Fund shall
develop a project-specific plan described in subparagraph
(B)(i) for each project that is used to generate power
marketed by the Federal Power Marketing Administration or the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
(ii) Use of existing data, information, and plans.--In
developing plans under clause (i), the Board, to the maximum
extent practicable, shall rely on existing data, information,
and mitigation and restoration plans developed by--

(I) the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation;
(II) the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service;
(III) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency; and
(IV) the heads of other Federal, State, and tribal
agencies.

(D) Maximum amount.--
(i) In general.--The Fund shall maintain a balance of not
more than $200,000,000 in excess of the amount that the Board
of Directors of the Fund determines is necessary to cover the
costs of project-specific plans required under this
paragraph.
(ii) Surplus revenue for deficit reduction.--Revenue that
would be deposited in the Fund but for the absence of such
project-specific plans shall be used by the Secretary of the
Treasury for purposes of reducing the Federal budget deficit.
(3) Fund for renewable resources.--
(A) Establishment.--
(i) In general.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a fund to be known as the ``Fund for
Renewable Resources'' (referred to in this paragraph as the
``Fund''), consisting of funds allocated under paragraph
(1)(B)(iii).
(ii) Administration.--The Fund shall be administered by the
Secretary of Energy.
(B) Use.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available for making
expenditures--
(i) to pay the incremental cost (above the expected market
cost of power) of nonhydroelectric renewable resources in the
region in which power is marketed by a Federal Power
Marketing Administration; and
(ii) to cover all costs incurred in establishing and
administering the Fund.
(C) Administration.--Amounts in the Fund shall be expended
only--
(i) in accordance with a plan developed by the Secretary of
Energy that is designed to foster the development of
nonhydroelectric renewable resources that show substantial
long-term promise but that are currently too expensive to
attract private capital sufficient to develop or ascertain
their potential; and
(ii) on recipients chosen through competitive bidding.
(D) Maximum amount.--
(i) In general.--The Fund shall maintain a balance of not
more than $50,000,000 in excess of the amount that the
Secretary of Energy determines is necessary to carry out the
plan developed under subparagraph (C)(i).
(ii) Surplus revenue for deficit reduction.--Revenue that
would be deposited in the Fund but for the absence of the
plan shall be used by the Secretary of the Treasury for
purposes of reducing the Federal budget deficit.
(j) Preference.--
(1) In general.--In making allocations or reallocations of
power under this section, a Federal Power Marketing
Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority shall
provide a preference for public bodies and cooperatives by
providing a right of first refusal to purchase the power at
market prices.
(2) Use.--
(A) In general.--Power purchased under paragraph (1)--
(i) shall be consumed by the preference customer or resold
for consumption by the constituent end-users of the
preference customer; and
(ii) may not be resold to other persons or entities.
(B) Transmission access.--In accordance with regulations of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a preference
customer shall have transmission access to power purchased
under paragraph (1).
(3) Competitive bidding.--If a public body or cooperative
does not purchase power under paragraph (1), the power shall
be allocated to the next highest bidder.
(k) Reforms.--The Secretary of Energy shall require each
Federal Power Marketing Administration to implement--
(1) program management reforms that require the Federal
Power Marketing Administration to assign personnel and incur
expenses only for authorized power marketing, reclamation,
and flood control activities and

[[Page 902]]

not for ancillary activities (including consulting or
operating services for other entities); and
(2) annual reporting requirements that clearly disclose to
the public, the activities of the Federal Power Marketing
Administration (including the full cost of the power projects
and power marketing programs).
(l) Contract Renewal.--Effective beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act, a Federal Power Marketing
Administration shall not enter into or renew any power
marketing contract for a term that exceeds 5 years.
(m) Restrictions.--Except for the Bonneville Power
Administration, each Federal Power Marketing Administration
shall be subject to the restrictions on the construction of
transmission and additional facilities that are established
under section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the
construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors
for flood control, and for other purposes'', approved
December 22, 1944 (commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act
of 1944'') (58 Stat. 890)).

SEC. 4. TRANSMISSION SERVICE PROVIDED BY FEDERAL POWER
MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS AND TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), a Federal Power
Marketing Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority
shall provide transmission service on an open access basis,
and at just and reasonable rates approved or established by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under part II of the
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824 et seq.), in the same manner
as the service is provided under Commission rules by any
public utility subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission
under that part.
(b) Expansion of Capabilities or Transmissions.--Subsection
(a) does not require a Federal Power Marketing Administration
or the Tennessee Valley Authority to expand a transmission or
interconnection capability or transmission.

SEC. 5. INTERIM REGULATION OF POWER RATE SCHEDULES OF FEDERAL
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS.

(a) In General.--During the date beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act and ending on the date on which market-
based pricing is implemented under section 3 (as determined
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), the Commission
may review and approve, reject, or revise power rate
schedules recommended for approval by the Secretary of
Energy, and existing rate schedules, for power sales by a
Federal Power Marketing Administration.
(b) Basis for Approval.--In evaluating rates under
subsection (a), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
accordance with section 3, shall--
(1) base any approval of the rates on the protection of the
public interest; and
(2) undertake to protect the interest of the taxpaying
public and consumers.
(c) Commission Actions.--As the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission determines is necessary to protect the public
interest in accordance with section 3 until a full transition
is made to market-based rates for power sold by Federal Power
Marketing Administrations, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission may--
(1) review the factual basis for determinations made by the
Secretary of Energy;
(2) revise or modify those findings as appropriate;
(3) revise proposed or effective rate schedules; or
(4) remand the rate schedules to the Secretary of Energy.
(d) Review.--An affected party (including a taxpayer,
bidder, preference customer, or affected competitor) may seek
a rehearing and judicial review of a final decision of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under this section in
accordance with section 313 of the Federal Power Act (16
U.S.C. 825l).
(e) Procedures.--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
shall by regulation establish procedures to carry out this
section.

SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Transfers from the Department of the Interior.--Section
302(a)(3) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7152(a)(3)) is amended by striking the last sentence.
(b) Use of Funds to Study Noncost-Based Methods of Pricing
Hydroelectric Power.--Section 505 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1993 (42 U.S.C. 7152 note;
106 Stat. 1343) is repealed.

SEC. 7. APPLICABILITY.

Except as provided in section 3(l), this Act shall apply to
a power sales contract entered into by a Federal Power
Marketing Administration or the Tennessee Valley Authority
after July 23, 1997.
______

By Mr. BREAUX:
S. 163. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
certain coins to be acquired by individual retirement accounts and
other individually directed pension plan accounts; to the Committee on
Finance.

certified u.s. legal tender coins allowed in iras

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
allowing certain U.S. legal tender coins to be qualified investments
for an individual retirement account (IRA).
Congress excluded ``collectibles'', such as antiques, gold and silver
bullion, and legal tender coinage, as appropriate for contribution to
IRAs in 1981. The primary reason was the concerns that individuals
would get a tax break when they bought collectibles for their personal
use. For example, a taxpayer might deduct the purchase of an antique
rug for his/her living room as an IRA investment. Congress was also
concerned about how the many different types of collectibles are
valued.
Over the years, however, certain coins and precious metals have been
excluded from the definition of a collectible because they are
independently valued investments that offer investors portfolio
diversity and liquidity. For example, Congress excluded gold and silver
U.S. American Eagles from the definition of collectibles in 1986, and
the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 took the further step of excluding
certain precious metals bullion.
My legislation would exclude form the definition of collectibles only
those U.S. legal tender coins which meet the following three standards;
certification by a nationally-recognized grading service, traded on a
nationally-recognized network and held by a qualified trustee as
described in the Internal Revenue Code. In other words, only investment
quality coins that are independently valued and not held for personal
use may be included in IRAs.
There are several nationally-recognized, independent certification or
grading services. Full-time professional graders (numismatists) examine
each coin for authenticity and grade them according to established
standards. Upon certification, the coin is sonically-sealed (preserved)
to ensure that it remains in the same condition as when it was graded.
Legal tender coins are then traded via two independent electronic
networks--the Certified Coin Exchange and Certified CoinNet. These
networks are independent of each other and have no financial interest
in legal tender coinage and precious metals markets. The networks
function in precisely the same manner as the NASDAQ with a series of
published ``bid'' and ``ask'' prices and last trades. The buys and
sells are enforceable prices that must be honored as posted until
updated.
Mr. President, the liquidity provided through a bona fide national
trading network, combined with published prices, make legal tender
coinage a practical investment that offers investors diversification
and liquidity. Investment in these tangible assets has become a safe
and prudent course of action for both the small and large investor and
should be given the same treatment under the law as other financial
investments. I urge the Senate to enact this important legislation as
soon as possible.
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. 163

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN COINS NOT TREATED AS COLLECTIBLES.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 408(m)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exception for
certain coins and bullion) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) any coin certified by a recognized grading service
and traded on a nationally recognized electronic network, or
listed by a recognized wholesale reporting service, and--
``(i) which is or was at any time legal tender in the
United States, or
``(ii) issued under the laws of any State, or''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1998.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 164. A bill to improve mathematics and science instruction; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

legislation to improve american math and science achievement

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
intended

[[Page 903]]

to help students in those States that do not fare well in academic
comparisons with students from other nations. It authorizes grants to
States whose students continue to be outperformed by students in a
majority of the nations which took the Third International Mathematics
and Science Study, or TIMSS.
TIMSS showed us that indisputably our students do not fare well in
international competition. The most striking finding was that American
students do worse, comparative speaking, the longer they are in our
schools. Our fourth graders performed in the middle range of scores in
math and were second to Japan in science. Our seniors are bringing up
the rear.
American high school seniors performed among the lowest of the 21
countries in the study. In mathematics our students were outperformed
by those of 14 countries, were statistically similar to 4 countries,
and outperformed only 2 countries. In science our students were
outperformed by those of 11 countries, were similar to 7 countries, and
again outperformed only 2 countries. Asian countries such as Korea,
Japan, and Singapore did not participate in the twelfth grade study.
Just as well, for morale purposes. Their students embarrassed our
students at the fourth and eighth grade levels.
The two questions that come to mind are what did we expect and what
are we to do?
Our expectations were high at the beginning of the decade. In
September 1989, President Bush met with the Nation's governors in
Charlottesville to set out goals for education. Four months later he
devoted a sizable portion of his State of the Union Address to setting
forth the agreed-upon goals. Some were lofty, harmless, and
unmeasurable: ``By the year 2000 every child must start school ready to
learn.'' Most children are. ``Every adult must be a skilled, literate
worker and citizen.'' We know what it means to be a skilled mechanic,
but a skilled citizen? Others were lofty, measurable, and the product
of a leakage of reality that was stupefying then as now. First and
foremost that ``By the year 2000, U.S. students would be first in the
world in math and science achievement.''
President Bush was speaking to Congress in a vocabulary created in
the 1960's by James S. Coleman, then professor of sociology at Johns
Hopkins University. The ``Coleman Report'' introduced the language of
educational outputs. Previously we spoke of inputs: student-teacher
ration, money per student, and such. Coleman introduced the idea of
outputs, and measuring our standing in the world is one such.
With Coleman we had a new vocabulary for education, but sadly not a
new understanding. The first finding of his remarkable report was
``that the schools are remarkably similar in the effect they have on
the achievement of their pupils when the socioeconomic background of
the students is taken into account.'' This was seismic. Family
background is more important than schools. But 24 years later, in 1990,
it had not been learned, or could still be ignored.
Stating that our goal was to become the leader in math and science
was folly. I wrote in the Winter 1991 Public Interest that ``on no
account could the President's goals--the quantified, specific goals--
reasonably be deemed capable of achievement.'' I cited the general
decline in high school graduation rates that began in 1970 and the lack
of success we had in meeting very similar goals President Reagan set
out in 1984. Most basically, we were ignoring Coleman's findings that
we would have to start with the American family before we could expect
improvements in American students.
I concluded the Public Interest piece by saying, ``If, as forecast
here, the year 2000 arrives and the United States is nowhere near
meeting the educational goals set out in 1990, the potential will
nonetheless exist for serious debate as to why what was basically a
political plan went wrong. We might even consider how it might have
turned out better.''
Our children will not meet the goals set for math and science
leadership. How can we help them do better? The TIMSS report says that
it is too early to draw specific conclusions about how to improve
performance in twelfth grade, that it will take some time to analyze
all the data therein. I should thing the higher education community
would be at the forefront of this effort, for the colleges are the most
immediately affected by undereducated high school graduates. One
student in five takes remedial courses in at least one subject.
Without giving short shrift to helping our elementary school
students, we must focus on finding ways to keep them at the level they
have achieved by fourth grade as they continue through school. This
bill would make a small contribution to that effort by providing grants
of $500,000 to $1,000,000 to states whose students collectively fall
below the median score among the nations whose eighth graders retake
the TIMSS tests this year or next. The money would be used to improve
mathematics or science education. The grants would be awarded
competitively; states whose students' scores qualify them must propose
constructive ways of using the grants, such as for equipment, teacher
training, or other purposes.
The Department of Education last year released Linking the National
Assessment of Educational Progress and the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study: Eighth grade results. This study showed
how the states' NAEP scores and other nations' TIMSS scores could be
compared. The Department of Education would use the same process to
determine where states rank in comparision with the upcoming results of
the TIMSS exams by a new group of eighth graders around the world.
Those states whose students score below the median in either math or
science would be eligible to apply for these grants.
Mr. President, money is not the answer to our dismal showing among
the nations of the world. Better families is the place to start. These
grants, however, would help those states that need help the most. I ask
my colleagues for their support and 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. 164

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

SECTION 1. GRANTS TO IMPROVE MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE
INSTRUCTION.

(a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of Education is
authorized to award a grant to the Governor or State
educational agency of a State if the Secretary determines
that the average score of 8th grade students in the State on
the 1999 retake of the Third International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS) is or would be lower than the median of
the scores of the countries participating in the 1999 retake
of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study.
(b) Amount.--The Secretary of Education shall award a grant
under this section in an amount not less than $500,000 and
not more than $1,000,000.
(c) Comparison.--The Secretary of Education shall use the
results of the most recent National Assessment of Educational
Progress for comparisons between States and countries with
respect to the 1999 retake of the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study.
(d) Competitive Basis.--The Secretary shall award grants
under this section on a competitive basis.
(e) Uses.--Each Governor or State educational agency
receiving a grant under this section shall use the grant
funds to improve mathematics and science instruction in the
State.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2003.

SEC. 2. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Math and Science Learning
Improvement Act of 1999''.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 165. A bill to require the Secretary of Education to correct
poverty data to account for cost of living differences; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

legislation to require poverty statistics be adjusted for local costs
of living

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation with a
simple

[[Page 904]]

purpose: to require that the formulas for distributing grants under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act use poverty statistics adjusted
for the costs of living in subnational areas. While residents of some
states such as New York earn more as a whole than residents of many
other states, they must also spend more. In some areas of New York,
they spend twice as much for the same necessities as families in urban
areas elsewhere in the nation. Children whose families live just above
the poverty threshold in New York and other wealthier states are
demonstrably worse off than children from families just below the
poverty threshold in states where the cost of living is lower.
As we begin the process of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act this year, I hope this disparity will be considered in
the distribution of funds targeted to schools in areas with high
incidences of poverty (primarily the Title One grants as now
authorized).
In 1995, a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel of experts
released a study on redefining poverty. Our poverty index dates back to
the work of Social Security Administration economist Mollie Orshansky
who, in the early 1960s, hit upon the idea of a nutritional standard,
not unlike the ``pennyloaf'' of bread of the 18th century British poor
laws. Our poverty standard would be three times the cost of the
Department of Agriculture-defined minimally adequate ``food basket.''
During consideration of the Family Support Act of 1988, I included a
provision mandating the National Academy of Sciences to determine if
our poverty measure is outdated and how it might be improved. The
study, edited by Constance F. Citro and Robert T. Michael, is entitled
``Measuring Poverty: A New Approach.'' A Congressional Research Service
review of the report states: The NAS panel makes several
recommendations which, if fully adopted, could dramatically alter the
way poverty in the U.S. is measured, how federal funds are allotted to
the States, and how eligibility for many Federal programs is
determined. The recommended poverty measure would be based on more
items in the family budget, would take major noncash benefits and taxes
into account, and would be adjusted for regional differences in living
costs.
Mr. President, our current poverty data are inaccurate. And these
substandard data are used in allocation formulas used to distribute
millions of Federal dollars each year. As a result, States with high
costs of living--states like New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New
Hampshire, New Jersey and California, just to name a few--are not
getting their fair share of Federal dollars because differences in the
cost of living are not factored into the allocation formula. And the
poor of these high cost states are penalized because they happen to
live there. It is time to correct this inequity. The ESEA
reauthorization will be one of the most significant measures we take up
this year. For the children most in need of good schools and a good
education, we should use adjusted poverty rates in the ESEA formulas. A
national poverty rate leads to inequities. Poverty rates adjusted for
subnational areas would be a significant step towards correcting them.
This bill would do so.
Mr. President, I ask my colleagues for their support and ask
unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 165

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

SECTION 1. POVERTY DATA.

Title XIV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``Part I--Poverty Data Adjustments

``SEC. 14901. POVERTY DATA ADJUSTMENTS.

``Whenever the Secretary uses any data that relates to the
incidence of poverty and is produced or published by or for
the Secretary of Commerce for subnational, State or substate
areas, the Secretary shall adjust the data to account for
differences in the cost of living in the areas.''.

SEC. 2. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as ``The Education Grant Formula
Adjustment Act of 1999''.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 166. A bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to determine any
surpluses or shortfalls in certain grant amounts made available to
States by reason of an undercount in the most recent decennial census
conducted by the Bureau of the Census; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.

legislation to provide the fiscal consequences of the undercount

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is
intended to shed a little more light on the consequences of a census
that is not adjusted for the undercount. The bill requires the
Secretary of Commerce to notify each governor how much more or less
Federal funding in his or her state would receive each fiscal year
following a decennial census if the census were adjusted for the
undercount and the adjusted figures were used in grant allocation
formulas.
This bill is not directly related to the controversy over sampling.
The sampling proposal made by the Bureau of the Census is one way to
eliminate the undercount, but there are other less controversial
methods. Not uncontroversial, but less so.
Mr. President, the taking of a census goes back centuries. I quote
from the King James version of the Bible, chapter two of Luke: ``And it
came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar
Augustus that all the world should be taxed (or enrolled, according to
the footnote) . . . And all went to be taxed, everyone into his own
city.'' The early censuses were taken to enable the ruler or ruling
government to tax or raise an army.
The first census for more sociological reasons was taken in Nuremberg
in 1449. So it was not a new idea to the Founding Fathers when they
wrote it into the Constitution to facilitate fair taxation and accurate
apportionment of the House of Representatives, the latter of which was
the foundation of the Great Compromise.
The Constitution says in Article I, Section 2:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among
the several States which may be included within this Union,
according to their respective numbers, which shall be
determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons,
including those bound to Service for a term of years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three
years of the first meeting of the Congress of the United
States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in
such manner as they shall direct by law.

Opponents of adjustment often say that the Constitution calls for an
``actual enumeration'', and this requires an actual headcount rather
than any statistical inference about those we know we miss every time.
That seems to take the phrase out of context. I note that we have not
taken an ``actual enumeration'' the way the Founding Fathers envisioned
since 1960, after which enumerators going to every door were replaced
with mail-in responses. The Constitution provides for a postal system,
but did not direct that the census be taken by mail. Yet we do it that
way.
Statistical work in the 1940s demonstrated that we can estimate the
undercount, the number of people the census misses. The estimate for
1940 was 5.4 percent of the population. After decreasing steadily to
1.2 percent in 1980, the 1990 undercount increased to 1.8 percent, or
more than four million people.
More significantly, the undercount is not distributed evenly. The
differential undercount, as it is known, of minorities was 4.4 percent
for Blacks, 5.0 percent for Hispanics, 2.3 percent for Asian-Pacific
islanders, and 4.5 percent for Native Americans, compared with 1.2
percent for non-Hispanic whites. The difference between the black and
non-black undercount was the largest since 1940. By disproportionately
missing minorities, we deprive them of equal representation in Congress
and of proportionate funding from Federal programs based on population.
The Census Bureau estimates that the total undercount will reach 1.9
percent in

[[Page 905]]

2000 if the 1990 methods are used instead of sampling.
Mr. President, I have some history with the undercount issue. In
1966 when I became Director of the Joint Center for Urban Studies at
MIT and Harvard, I asked Professor David Heer to work with me in
planning a conference to publicize the non-white undercount in the 1960
census and to foster concern about the problems of obtaining a full
enumeration, especially of the urban poor. I ask that my forward to the
report from that conference be printed following my remarks, for it is,
save for some small numerical changes, disturbingly still relevant.
My hope is that if governors and other interested parties learn the
financial consequences of the undercount, support may grow for
correcting it. It is regrettable that we don't do it, simply because we
should. But if a yearly reminder of how the undercount affects formula
grant programs helps change some minds, it is worth the effort.
I ask my colleagues for their support and I ask unanimous consent
that the bill and additional material, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 166

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Covered federal formula grant.--The term ``covered
Federal formula grant'' means a grant awarded by the Federal
Government on the basis of a formula that provides for the
distribution of funds to States.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Commerce.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands.

SEC. 2. CALCULATIONS OF SHORTFALLS AND SURPLUS AMOUNTS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Determination of funding amounts.--As soon as
practicable after receiving the information concerning the
fiscal year immediately preceding the date of enactment of
this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Comptroller General of the United
States and the heads of appropriate Federal agencies, shall
determine, for the immediately preceding fiscal year--
(A) the amount of funds made available for that fiscal year
for each covered Federal formula grant program; and
(B) for each covered Federal formula grant program, the
amount distributed to each grant recipient.
(2) Information.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, and not later than 120 days after the
end of each fiscal year thereafter, the head of each Federal
agency that administers a covered Federal formula grant
program shall submit to the Secretary--
(A) the amount of funds made available for that program for
that fiscal year; and
(B) for each State recipient of a covered Federal formula
grant, the amount distributed as a grant award under that
grant to that recipient.
(b) Determinations for Formula Grant Programs that Received
the Greatest Amount of Funding.--Upon making the
determinations under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
determine--
(1) the 100 covered Federal formula grant programs that
received the greatest amounts of funding during the preceding
fiscal year; and
(2) whether, on the basis of undercounting for the most
recent decennial census (as determined by the Secretary,
acting through the Bureau of the Census), any State recipient
of a grant award under paragraph (1) received an amount less
than or greater than the amount that the recipient would
otherwise have received if an adjustment to the grant award
had been made for that undercounting.
(c) Reports.--
(1) In general.--Upon making the determinations under
subsection (b), the Secretary shall prepare, for each State,
an annual report that includes--
(A) a listing of any grant award under subsection (b)(1)
provided to that State that was an amount less than or
greater than amount that the State would otherwise have
received if an adjustment for undercounting referred to in
that subsection had been made; and
(B) for each grant award listed under subparagraph (A), the
amount of the shortfall or surplus determined under
subsection (b)(2).
(2) Distribution.--The Secretary shall provide to the
Governor of each State (or the equivalent official) a copy of
the report prepared under paragraph (1) for that State.
____

Social Statistics and the City

(By David M. Heer)

Foreword

At one point in the course of the 1950's John Kenneth
Galbraith observed that it is the statisticians, as much as
any single group, who shape public policy, for the simple
reason that societies never really become effectively
concerned with social problems until they learn to measure
them. An unassuming truth, perhaps, but a mighty one, and one
that did more than he may know to sustain morale in a number
of Washington bureaucracies (hateful word!) during a period
when the relevant cabinet officers had on their own reached
very much the same conclusion--and distrusted their charges
all the more in consequence. For it is one of the ironies of
American government that individuals and groups that have
been most resistant to liberal social change have quite
accurately perceived that social statistics are all too
readily transformed into political dynamite, whilst in a
curious way the reform temperament has tended to view the
whole statistical process as plodding, overcautious, and
somehow a brake on progress. (Why must every statistic be
accompanied by detailed notes about the size of the
``standard error''?)
The answer, of course, is that this is what must be done if
the fact is to be accurately stated, and ultimately accepted.
But, given this atmosphere of suspicion on the one hand and
impatience on the other, it is something of a wonder that the
statistical officers of the federal government have with such
fortitude and fairness remained faithful to a high
intellectual calling, and an even more demanding public
trust.
There is no agency of which this is more true than the
Bureau of the Census, the first, and still the most
important, information-gathering agency of the federal
government. For getting on, now, for two centuries, the
Census has collected and compiled the essential facts of the
American experience. Of late the ten-year cycle has begun to
modulate somewhat, and as more and more current reports have
been forthcoming, the Census has been quietly transforming
itself into a continuously flowing source of information
about the American people. In turn, American society has
become more and more dependent on it. It would be difficult
to find an aspect of public or private life not touched and
somehow shaped by Census information. And yet for all this,
it is somehow ignored. To declare that the Census is without
friends would be absurd. But partisans? When Census
appropriations are cut, who bleeds on Capitol Hill or in the
Executive Office of the President? The answer is almost
everyone in general, and therefore no one in particular. But
the result, too often, is the neglect, even the abuse, of an
indispensable public institution, which often of late has
served better than it has been served.
The papers in this collection, as Professor Heer's
introduction explains, were presented at a conference held in
June 1967 with the avowed purpose of arousing a measure of
public concern about the difficulties encountered by the
Census in obtaining a full count of the urban poor,
especially perhaps the Negro poor. It became apparent, for
example, that in 1960 one fifth of nonwhite males aged 25-29
had in effect disappeared and had been left out of the Census
count altogether. Invisible men. Altogether, one tenth of the
non-white population had been ``missed.'' The ramifications
of this fact were considerable, and its implications will
suggest themselves immediately. It was hoped that a public
airing of the issue might lead to greater public support to
ensure that the Census would have the resources in 1970 to do
what is, after all, its fundamental job, that of counting all
the American people. As the reader will see, the scholarly
case for providing this support was made with considerable
energy and candor. But perhaps the most compelling argument
arose from a chance remark by a conference participant to the
effect that if the decennial census were not required by the
Constitution, the Bureau would doubtless never have survived
the economy drives of the nineteenth century. The thought
flashed: the full enumeration of the American population is
not simply an optional public service provided by government
for the use of sales managers, sociologists, and regional
planners. It is, rather, the constitutionally mandated
process whereby political representation in the Congress is
distributed as between different areas of the Nation. It is a
matter not of convenience but of the highest seriousness,
affecting the very foundations of sovereignty. That being the
case, there is no lawful course but to provide the Bureau
with whatever resources are necessary to obtain a full
enumeration. Inasmuch as Negroes and other ``minorities'' are
concentrated in specific urban locations, to undercount
significantly the population in those areas is to deny
residents their rights under Article I, Section 3 of the
Constitution, as well, no doubt, as under Section 1 of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Given the further, more recent practice
of distributing Federal, State, and local categorical aid on
the basis not only of the number but also social and economic
characteristics of local populations, the constitutional case
for full enumeration would seem to be further strengthened.

[[Page 906]]

A sound legal case? Others will judge; and possibly one day
the courts will decide. But of one thing the conference had
no doubt: the common-sense case is irrefutable. America needs
to count all its people. (And reciprocally, all its people
need to make themselves available to be counted.) But if the
legal case adds any strength to the common-sense argument, it
remains only to add that should either of the arguments bring
some improvement in the future, it will be but another
instance of the generosity of the Carnegie Corporation, which
provided funds for the conference and for this publication.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
S. 167. A bill to extend the authorization for the Upper Delaware
Citizens Advisory Council and to authorize construction and operation
of a visitor center for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational
River, New York and Pennsylvania; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.

upper delaware scenic and recreational river legislation

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my
friend and colleague Senator Schumer, a bill to extend the
authorization for the Upper Delaware River Citizens Advisory Committee
and authorize the construction of a visitors center. The Upper Delaware
is a 73-mile stretch of free flowing water between Hancock and
Sparrowbush, New York along the Pennsylvania border. The area is home
to the Zane Gray Museum and to Roebling's Delaware Aqueduct, which is
believed to be the oldest existing wire cable suspension bridge. The
Upper Delaware is an ideal location for canoeing, kayaking, rafting,
tubing, sightseeing, and fishing.
In 1987 the Secretary of the Interior approved a management plan for
the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River which called for the
development of a visitors center at the south end of the river
corridor. It would be owned and constructed by the National Park
Service. In 1993 New York State authorized a lease with the Park
Service for the construction of a visitor center on State-owned land in
the town of Deerpark in the vicinity of Mongaup. This bill allows the
Secretary to enter into such a lease and to construct and operate the
visitor center.
Mr. President, the many thousands of visitors to this wonderful river
would benefit greatly from a place to go to find out about the
recreational opportunities, the history, and the flora and fauna of the
river. This bill would move that process along to its conclusion. It
would also reauthorize the Citizens Advisory Council which ensures that
the views and concerns of local residents are kept in mind when
management decisions are made. My colleague from New York and I ask for
the support of other Senators, and I ask unanimous consent that the
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 167

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION FOR UPPER DELAWARE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Section 704(f)(1) of the National Parks and Recreation Act
of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1274 note; Public Law 95-625) is amended
in the last sentence by striking ``20'' and inserting ``30''.

SEC. 2. VISITOR CENTER FOR UPPER DELAWARE SCENIC AND
RECREATIONAL RIVER.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) on September 29, 1987, the Secretary of the Interior
approved a management plan for the Upper Delaware Scenic and
Recreational River, as required by section 704(c) of the
National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1274
note; Public Law 95-625);
(2) the management plan called for the development of a
primary visitor contact facility located at the southern end
of the river corridor;
(3) the management plan determined that the visitor center
would be built and operated by the National Park Service;
(4) section 704 of that Act limits the authority of the
Secretary of the Interior to acquire land within the boundary
of the river corridor; and
(5) on June 21, 1993, the State of New York authorized a
99-year lease between the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and the National Park Service for
construction and operation of a visitor center by the Federal
Government on State-owned land in the town of Deerpark,
Orange County, New York, in the vicinity of Mongaup, which is
the preferred site for the visitor center.
(b) Authorization of Visitor Center.--Section 704(d) of the
National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1274
note; Public Law 95-625) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(d) Notwithstanding'' and inserting the
following:
``(d) Acquisition of Land.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Visitor center.--For the purpose of constructing and
operating a visitor center for the segment of the Upper
Delaware River designated as a scenic and recreational river
by section 3(a)(19) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16
U.S.C. 1274(a)(19)), subject to the availability of
appropriations, the Secretary of the Interior may--
``(A) enter into a lease with the State of New York, for a
term of 99 years, for State-owned land within the boundaries
of the Upper Delaware River located at an area known as
`Mongaup' near the confluence of the Mongaup and Upper
Delaware Rivers in the State of New York; and
``(B) construct and operate the visitor center on the land
leased under subparagraph (A).''.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 168. A bill for the relief of Thomas J. Sansone, Jr.; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

private relief bill

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that
will provide compensation under the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program (VICP) to Tommy Sansone, Jr. Tommy was injured by
a DPT vaccine in June 1994 and continues to suffer seizures and brain
damage to this day. Tommy is the untended and helpless victim of a drug
designed to help him. He needs our help because while the Vaccine
Injury Program is meant to make reparations for these injuries, it is
hampered by regulations that challenge the worthiest of claims.
Back in 1986, Congress passed the Vaccine Injury Act to take care of
vaccine injuries because the shots that we required our children to get
were not as safe as they could have been. Since the program was
established, more than 1100 children have been compensated. Over the
first ten years, a great percentage of those with seizures or brain
damage or other symptoms were recognized to be DPT-injured, and, they
were summarily compensated. But, by 1995, the Institutes of Medicine
(IOM) and others concluded that because the symptoms had no unique
clinical profile, they were not necessarily DPT injuries. So, HHS
changed the definitions of encephalopathy (inflammation of the brain),
and of vaccine injury. Those new definitions had unintended
consequences. Now, the program that we set up to be expeditious and
fair, uses criteria that are so strict that the fund from which these
claims are paid pays fewer claims than before and the fund has
ballooned to over $1.2 billion. As a result, families of children like
Tommy find it nearly impossible to win a claim against the Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program. The program is failing its mission.
To be clear, VICP is not a medical insurance policy. The program is
not designed to take care of those who cannot get or receive care. VICP
is a compensation program, where the government makes amends for a
failure in the system that it established. Claims are paid from a trust
fund established from surcharges that are paid on each shot a child
receives. The fund serves as an insurance policy against vaccine
injuries. But, following the regulatory changes made in 1995, the
government is not recognizing even the most legitimate of claims. We
are failing the very children we are trying to protect.
Over the years after his DPT shot (the combined shot for diphtheria,
pertussis and tetanus), Tommy suffers severe seizures and from brain
damage that has hampered his mental development. When he wakes in the
morning or from a nap, either his mother or father is at his side
waiting for the inevitable. Tommy's eyes tear and his face cringes in
agony as his entire body is wracked with a muscle-clenching seizure.
His parents hold him helplessly until the seizure subsides, sometimes
for as long as five minutes. Tommy will then look into his mother's
loving eyes, and say, ``No more, mommy. Make them stop.''

[[Page 907]]

At the very least, Tommy's parents know that the strain of vaccine
used on Tommy is now being phased out because of the rash of adverse
reactions it caused. But this does nothing for Tommy or his parents,
who have been in and out of countless hospitals, and consulted with
doctors and experts at the Centers for Disease Control and the Health
Resources and Services Administration. Their claim for compensation was
dismissed in the Federal Court of Claims, but they and Tommy's doctor
feel (and I agree with them) that they should have known more about the
potential dangers of the DPT vaccine that Tommy received on June 1,
1994. No one told them that there was a chance that the DPT vaccine
could cause such trauma. No one told them about ``hot lots,'' an
unofficial term for a batch of shots that has had an abundance of
adverse reactions. The lot that Tommy received is known to have had 44
such reactions from March-November 1994, including 2 deaths. These are
reactions beyond the short-lived fever and rashes that accompany many
vaccines. Their doctor didn't know about the availability of the
``new'' acellular strain of pertussis vaccine that is replacing the
whole cell version that had been used since the 1930s. Sure, it costs a
couple of dollars more, but who wouldn't choose that for their child--
given the choice?
Tommy's claim would have been covered before the 1995 changes, but
that is not the case any longer. He's the victim of a bad DPT vaccine,
yet his case continues to be denied because the first seizure didn't
occur within 72 hours of the shot. It occurred 18 days later, and he
suffers to this day. Tommy also has brain damage (encephalopathy)
because of the DPT shot, but it doesn't fit that new definition either.
He cried and moaned at a shrill pitch from the moment of the shot until
his first seizure, but that doesn't matter either. For the first six
months of his life, Tommy was in all ways normal, but for 4 and a half
years since the DPT vaccine he and his family have suffered. As a
parent and grandparent, I would do anything to protect my family from
such pain and suffering. Tom Sansone, Sr. has done everything he knows
how to help his son. Now he has turned to me because he knows I am in a
position to help and I will not relent in my pursuit of relief for the
Sansone family. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program should take
care of Tommy, but it doesn't. This bill will enable us to ensure that
it does.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 168

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

SECTION 1. COMPENSATION FOR VACCINE-RELATED INJURY.

(a) Cause of Injury.--In consideration of the petition
filed under subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq.) (relating to the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program) by the legal
representatives of Thomas J. Sansone, Jr., including the
claims contained in that petition that the injury described
in that petition was cause by a vaccine covered in the
Vaccine Injury Table specified in section 2114 of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 300aa-14) and given on June 1, 1994, such injury
is deemed to have been caused by such vaccine for the
purposes of subtitle 2 of title XXI of such Act.
(b) Payment.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall pay compensation to Thomas J. Sansone, Jr. for the
injury referred to in subsection (a) in accordance with
section 2115 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aa-15).
______

By Mr. CLELAND (for himself, Mr. Robb, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Reed,
and Mr. Daschle):
S. 169. A bill to improve pay, retirement, and educational assistance
benefits for members of the Armed Forces; and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Armed Services.

the military recruiting and retention improvement act of 1999

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to introduce with
my colleagues, Senators Robb, Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Bingaman,
Lieberman, Landrieu, Reed, and Daschle--The Military Recruiting and
Retention Improvement Act of 1999. I strongly believe that this bill
represents an excellent step toward providing the men and women of the
military a clear signal that we the people of the United States and we
the members of the Congress of the United States value their
contributions, understand their needs and concerns, and understand our
obligations to provide for those who have answered the calling to
defend our Nation.
The signal that we send to the people in the military and to the
people of the United States should be one of hope and opportunity, and
one that understands the critical needs of military members and their
families. Twenty-five years ago Americans opted to end the draft and to
establish an all-volunteer military force to provide for our national
security. That policy carried with it a requirement that we invest the
needed resources to bring into existence a competent and professional
military. Currently, all services are having difficulty in attracting
and retaining qualified individuals. Seasoned, well-qualified personnel
are leaving in alarming numbers. Specifically, the Navy is not making
its recruiting goals. The Army cites pay and retirement, and overall
quality of life as three of the top four reasons soldiers are leaving.
The Air Force is currently 850 pilots short. The Marine Corps is
hampered by inadequate funding of the pay and retirement and quality of
life accounts in meeting its readiness and modernizing needs. All
services, including the Guard and Reserve Components, are experiencing
similar recruiting and retention problems. These shortfalls must be
addressed if our Nation is to continue to have a highly capable,
cutting edge military force.
In light of our recent successful operations around the world, in the
Persian Gulf and elsewhere, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that
we continue to recruit, train and retain the best of America to serve
in our armed forces, which is the goal of the legislation I am
introducing today. Equally important, this bill, for the first time in
a long time, addresses the immediate family members of our brave
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. The Military Recruiting and
Retention Improvement Act of 1999 addresses the concerns of Secretary
of Defense Cohen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Congress regarding
recruiting a strong, viable military force for the 21st Century. It
also significantly assists in retaining the right military personnel
for the 21st Century. If we fail today to address these key issues, now
when we have the combination of a strong economy, a relatively positive
budget outlook, and a world which is largely at peace, we may well have
missed a key window of opportunity. The bill we are introducing today
goes a long way toward eliminating the deficiencies that we all have
recently heard so much about from the Chiefs and a myriad of experts
who are greatly concerned about the readiness of our military force,
especially as we look a few years ahead.
Military experts, defense journalists, former Secretaries of Defense,
former Service Chiefs, former theater Commanders in Chief, research and
development specialists and even civilian industry leaders agree: the
number one factor undergirding our superpower military status is the
people of our Armed Forces. This critical ingredient means something
different today than it did on the beaches of Normandy, in the jungles
of Vietnam, or in fact even on the deserts of Kuwait. Today, the people
of our military are as dedicated, as committed, as patriotic as any
force we have ever fielded. They are, in fact, smarter, better trained,
and more technically adept than any who we have ever counted upon to
defend our Nation. Operation Desert Fox proved this fact. This
flawless, but dangerous and stressful, operation involved 40,000 troops
from bases virtually around the world. Over 40 shops performed around
the clock strikes and support. Six hundred aircraft sorties were flown
in four days, and over 300 of these were night strike operations. And
this massive effort was carried out without a single loss of American
or British life!

[[Page 908]]

In contrast to this and other post-Vietnam successes, consider the
problems which face the people in uniform. New global security threats
and our strong economy each exert enormous pressures on the people in
the military and their families. By some measures the pay for our
military personnel lags 13 percent behind the civilian pay raises over
the last 20 years. Yet, we ask our military to train on highly
technical equipment, to commit themselves in harm's way, to leave their
families, and to execute flawless operations. Sometimes these
operations are new and different from any past military operations, but
they can be just as dangerous. Meanwhile, some of our servicemen and
women qualify for food stamps, do not have the same educational
opportunities as their civilian counterparts, must deal with confusing
and changing health benefits and/or can not find affordable housing.
Something is badly wrong with this picture, and the Congress and the
Administration must work together to set things right.
Specifically, we need to recruit good people, continue to train them,
and retain them in the military. This is difficult at best with the
changes in our society, the rapidly changing threats to our security,
and a prosperous economy. As I heard a service member say during a
hearing I held at Ft. Gordon, Georgia last year, we recruit an
individual, but we retain a family.
Some of the recruiting and retention problems of today's United
States military are well documented. Others need to be more thoroughly
explored. They all need to be addressed. The Military Recruiting and
Retention Improvement Act of 1999 is but the first step. It is the
beginning. I caution my colleagues that today's servicemen and women,
and their families, are intelligent and are quick to recognize
duplicity in the words and actions of our civilian and military
leadership. Our military's most important assets--its people--are
leaving the military, and many of America's best are not even
considering joining the military. We must proceed expeditiously, with
firm purpose and unified non-partisanship if we are to reverse these
dangerous trends.
This bill responds to current data which provide some insight into
how we can more effectively respond to today's youth and their service
in the military. This 106th Congress has a tremendous opportunity to
respond to today's military personnel problems. We must keep our focus
on current and future personnel issues, including recognizing and
responding to the need to retain a family. Our legislation does so.
Mr. President, the bill my colleagues and I are introducing today
includes all three parts of the Department of Defense's proposed pay
and retirement package. It incorporates some of the recommendations
made by the Congressionally mandated Principi Commission, and it
provides some additional innovative ideas for addressing these key
personnel issues, now and into the future.
First, our bill provides a 4.8% pay raise across-the-board for all
military members, effective January 1, 2000, and carries out the stated
objective of Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff of bringing
military pay more in line with private sector wages. This increase
raises military pay in FY2000 by one-half a percentage point above the
annual increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI), and represents the
largest increase in military pay since 1982. Furthermore, and also in
keeping with DoD's current plans, we would provide an annual increase
in military pay of one-half percent above the annual increase in the
ECI in each year from FY2001 to FY2006.
Another of the Joint Chiefs' recommendations included in our
legislation is the targeted pay raise for mid-grade officers and
enlisted personnel, and also for key promotion points. These raises,
amounting to between 4.8 percent and 10.3 percent, which includes the
January 1, 2000, pay raise and would be effective July 1, 2000.
The third part of our legislation taken from the DOD plan is a
revision in the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986, which would
restore the 50 percent basic pay benefit for military members who
retire at 20 years of service.
I am proud to say that in addition to the pay and retirement benefits
package proposed by Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs, our
legislation includes several key recommendations from the recent report
of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans
Transition Assistance, also known as the Principi Commission. These
provisions are specifically designed to assist the military services in
their recruiting and retention efforts.
Information and data that we are seeing indicate that education
benefits are an essential component in attracting young people to enter
the armed services. This may be the single most important step this
Congress can take in assisting recruitment. Improvements in the
Montgomery GI Bill are needed, and our bill represents a vital move in
that direction.
In keeping with the Principi Commission, our legislation would
increase the basic GI Bill benefit from $528 to $600 per month and
eliminate the current requirement for entering service members to
contribute $1,200 of their own money in order to participate in the
program. These changes should dramatically increase the attractiveness
of the GI Bill to potential recruits, and give our Service Secretaries
a powerful recruiting incentive.
Our legislation also adopts the Principi Commission recommendations
to allow service members to transfer their earned GI Bill benefits to
one or more immediate family members. Mr. President, this idea is
innovative, it is powerful and it sends the right message to both those
young people we are trying to attract into the military and those we
are trying to retain.
The Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999
includes a provision that would allow military members to participate
in the current Thrift Savings Plan available to Federal civil servants.
Under this proposal, which adopts another recommendation of the
Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition
Assistance, military members would be permitted to contribute up to 5
percent of their basic pay, and all or any part of any enlistment or
reenlistment bonus, to the Thrift Savings Plan.
Another section of our legislation extends for three years--through
December 31, 2002--the authority for the military services to pay a
number of bonuses and special incentive pays that are fundamental to
recruiting and retaining highly skilled military members. The authority
to pay these bonuses and special pay expires at the end of this year.
By renewing this authority now through the end of 2002, we will provide
military managers with these crucial retention tools. By acting now and
for three years, the military members themselves will have greater
confidence that these pay incentives will be available.
Mr. President, based on our initial estimates, it is my understanding
that the provisions contained in this legislation will not require us
to increase the funding for national defense above the levels in the
President's FY2000-2006 Future Years Defense Plan. However, more
precise costing will have to be done by the Congressional Budget Office
over the next several weeks.
I know that all Members of the United States Senate are committed to
the well-being of our servicemen and women and their families. They are
doing their duty with honor and dignity. They are serving our country
around the globe. They, along with their families, deserve our
commitment. The bill we are introducing today is fair and will ensure
that we continue to attract and retain high quality people to serve in
our armed forces. It represents the beginning of a process to provide
hope and opportunity to those who wear the uniform of our Services. The
President has announced a very good plan, as has the distinguished
Majority Leader. We must move forward, together, in addressing these
important personnel and readiness issues.
In closing, I want to recognize the leadership of Senator Levin, and
the

[[Page 909]]

other members of the Armed Services Committee who are co-sponsoring
this legislation. We are all absolutely committed to the welfare of our
servicemen and women and their families. They provide for us, and it is
time for us to provide our obligation to them. I look forward to
working with Senator Levin, Chairman Warner, and all of our colleagues
on the Armed Services Committee in the months ahead to honor that
obligation. I know I speak for myself and all of my co-sponsors in
pledging to do our utmost to achieve that goal.
Mr. President, I now ask an unanimous consent that a summary and the
text of the Military Recruitment and Retention Improvement Act of 1999
be printed into the Record.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 169

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 ``Military Recruiting and
Retention Improvement Act of 1999''.
TITLE I--PAY AND ALLOWANCES

SEC. 101. FISCAL YEAR 2000 INCREASE AND RESTRUCTURING OF
BASIC PAY.

(a) Waiver of Section 1009 Adjustment.--Any adjustment
required by section 1009 of title 37, United States Code, in
the rates of monthly basic pay authorized members of the
uniformed services by section 203(a) of such title to become
effective during fiscal year 2000 shall not be made.
(b) January 1, 2000, Increase in Basic Pay.--Effective on
January 1, 2000, the rates of monthly basic pay for members
of the uniformed services shall be increased by 4.8 percent.
(c) Basic Pay Reform.--Effective on July 1, 2000, the rates
of monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed services
are as follows:

COMMISSIONED OFFICERS \1\
Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
O-9............. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
O-8............. 6,594.30 6,810.30 6,953.10 6,993.30 7,171.80
O-7............. 5,479.50 5,851.80 5,851.50 5,894.40 6,114.60
O-6............. 4,061.10 4,461.60 4,754.40 4,754.40 4,772.40
O-5............. 3,248.40 3,813.90 4,077.90 4,127.70 4,291.80
O-4............. 2,737.80 3,333.90 3,556.20 3,606.04 3,812.40
O-3 \3\......... 2,544.00 2,884.20 3,112.80 3,364.80 3,525.90
O-2 \3\......... 2,218.80 2,527.20 2,910.90 3,000.00 3,071.10
O-1 \3\......... 1,926.30 2,004.90 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
-------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
O-9............. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
O-8............. 7,471.50 7,540.80 7,824.60 7,906.20 8,150.10
O-7............. 6,282.00 6,475.80 6,669.00 6,863.10 7,471.50
O-6............. 4,976.70 5,004.00 5,004.00 5,169.30 5,791.20
O-5............. 4,291.80 4,420.80 4,659.30 4,971.90 5,286.00
O-4............. 3,980.40 4,251.50 4,464.00 4,611.00 4,758.90
O-3 \3\......... 3,702.60 3,850.20 4,040.40 4,139.10 4,139.10
O-2 \3\......... 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10
O-1 \3\......... 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
-------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........ $0.00 $10,655.1 $10,707.6 $10,930.2 $11,318.40
0 0 0
O-9............. 0.00 9,319.50 9,453.60 9,647.70 9,986.40
O-8............. 8,503.80 8,830.20 9,048.00 9,048.00 9,048.00
O-7............. 7,985.40 7,985.40 7,985.40 7,985.40 8,025.60
O-6............. 6,086.10 6,381.30 6,549.00 6,719.10 7,049.10
O-5............. 5,436.00 5,583.60 5,751.90 5,751.90 5,751.90
O-4............. 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70
O-3 \3\......... 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10
O-2 \3\......... 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10
O-1 \3\......... 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Basic pay for these officers is limited to the rate of basic pay for
level V of the Executive Schedule.
\2\ While serving as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of
Staff of the Air Force, Commandant of the Marine Corps, or Commandant
of the Coast Guard, basic pay for this grade is calculated to be
$12,441.00, regardless of cumulative years of service computed under
section 205 of title 37, United States Code. Nevertheless, basic pay
for these officers is limited to the rate of basic pay for level V of
the Executive Schedule.
\3\ Does not apply to commissioned officers who have been credited with
over 4 years of active duty service as an enlisted member or warrant
officer.

COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WITH OVER 4 YEARS OF ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE AS AN
ENLISTED MEMBER OR WARRANT OFFICER
Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,364.80 $3,525.90
O-2E............ 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,009.00 3,071.10
O-1E............ 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,423.10 2,588.40
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
-------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............ $3,702.60 $3,850.20 $4,040.40 $4,200.30 $4,291.80
O-2E............ 3,168.60 3,333.90 3,461.40 3,556.20 3,556.20
O-1E............ 2,683.80 2,781.30 2,877.60 3,009.00 3,009.00
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
-------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............ $4,416.90 $4,416.90 $4,416.90 $4,416.90 $4,416.90
O-2E............ 3,556.20 3,556.20 3,556.20 3,556.20 3,556.20
O-1E............ 3,009.00 3,009.00 3,009.00 3,009.00 3,009.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

WARRANT OFFICERS
Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
W-5.............. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
W-4.............. 2,592.00 2,788.50 2,868.60 2,947.50 3,083.40
W-3.............. 2,355.90 2,555.40 2,555.40 2,588.40 2,694.30
W-2.............. 2,063.40 2,232.60 2,232.60 2,305.80 2,423.10
W-1.............. 1,719.00 1,971.00 1,971.00 2,135.70 2,232.60
------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
------------------------------------------------------
W-5.............. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
W-4.............. 3,217.20 3,352.80 3,485.10 3,622.20 3,753.60

[[Page 910]]

W-3.............. 2,814.90 2,974.20 3,071.10 3,177.00 3,298.20
W-2.............. 2,555.40 2,852.60 2,749.80 2,844.30 2,949.00
W-1.............. 2,332.80 2,433.30 2,533.20 2,634.00 2,734.80
------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
------------------------------------------------------
W-5.............. $0.00 $4,475.10 $4,628.70 $4,782.90 $4,937.40
W-4.............. 3,888.00 4,019.00 4,155.60 4,289.70 4,427.10
W-3.............. 3,418.50 3,539.10 3,659.40 3,780.00 3,900.90
W-2.............. 3,058.40 3,163.80 3,270.90 3,378.30 3,378.30
W-1.............. 2,835.00 2,910.90 2,910.90 2,910.90 2,910.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENLISTED MEMBERS
Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \4\.......... $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
E-8.............. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
E-7.............. 1,765.80 1,927.80 2,001.00 2,073.00 2,147.70
E-6.............. 1,518.90 1,678.20 1,752.60 1,824.30 1,899.30
E-5.............. 1,332.60 1,494.00 1,566.00 1,640.40 1,714.50
E-4.............. 1,242.90 1,373.10 1,447.20 1,520.10 1,593.90
E-3.............. 1,171.50 1,260.60 1,334.10 1,335.90 1,335.90
E-2.............. 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40
E-1.............. \5\ 1,005 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60
.60
------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \4\.......... $0.00 $3,015.30 $3,083.40 $3,169.80 $3,271.50
E-8.............. 2,528.40 2,601.60 2,669.70 2,751.60 2,840.10
E-7.............. 2,220.90 2,294.10 2,367.30 2,439.30 2,514.00
E-6.............. 1,973.10 2,047.20 2,118.60 2,191.50 2,244.60
E-5.............. 1,789.50 1,861.50 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20
E-4.............. 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90
E-3.............. 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90
E-2.............. 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40
E-1.............. 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60
------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \4\.......... $3,373.20 $3,473.40 $3,609.30 $3,744.00 $3,915.80
E-8.............. 2,932.50 3,026.10 3,161.10 3,295.50 3,483.60
E-7.............. 2,588.10 2,660.40 2,787.60 2,926.20 3,134.40
E-6.............. 2,283.30 2,283.30 2,285.70 2,285.70 2,285.70
E-5.............. 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20
E-4.............. 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90
E-3.............. 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90
E-2.............. 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,123.20 1,127.40
E-1.............. 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ While serving as Sergeant Major of the Army, Master Chief Petty
Officer of the Navy, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Sergeant
Major of the Marine Corps, or Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast
Guard, basic pay for this grade is $4,701.00, regardless of cumulative
years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
Code.
\5\ In the case of members in the grade E-1 who have served less than 4
months on active duty, basic pay is $930.30.

SEC. 102. PAY INCREASES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001 THROUGH 2006 AT
ECI PLUS ONE-HALF PERCENT.

Notwithstanding subsection (c) of section 1009 of title 37,
United States Code, the percentage of the increase in the
rates of monthly basic pay that takes effect under that
section during each of fiscal years 2001 through 2006 shall
be the percentage equal to the sum of one percent plus the
percentage increase calculated as provided under subsection
(a) of section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, for such
fiscal year (without regard to whether rates of pay under the
statutory pay systems are actually increased by the
percentage calculated under such section 5303(a) during such
fiscal year).

SEC. 103. THREE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO
PAYMENT OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL PAYS.

(a) Aviation Officer Retention Bonus.--Section 301b(a) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking
``December 31, 1999,'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002,''.
(b) Reenlistment Bonus for Active Members.--Section 308(g)
of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking
``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
(c) Enlistment Bonuses for Members With Critical Skills.--
Sections 308a(c) and 308f(c) of title 37, United States Code,
are each amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
(d) Special Pay for Nuclear-Qualified Officers Extending
Period of Active Service.--Section 312(e) of title 37, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
(e) Nuclear Career Accession Bonus.--Section 312b(c) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking
``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
(f) Nuclear Career Annual Incentive Bonus.--Section 312c(d)
of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking ``any
fiscal year beginning before October 1, 1998, and the 15-
month period beginning on that date and ending on December
31, 1999'' and inserting ``the 15-month period beginning on
October 1, 1998, and ending on December 31, 1999, and any
year beginning after December 31, 1999, and ending before
January 1, 2003''.

SEC. 104. THREE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL
PAY AUTHORITIES FOR RESERVE FORCES.

(a) Special Pay for Health Professionals in Critically
Short Wartime Specialties.--Section 302g(f) of title 37,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``December 31,
1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
(b) Selected Reserve Reenlistment Bonus.--Section 308b(f)
of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking
``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
(c) Selected Reserve Enlistment Bonus.--Section 308c(e) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking
``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
(d) Special Pay for Enlisted Members Assigned to Certain
High Priority Units.--Section 308d(c) of title 37, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
(e) Selected Reserve Affiliation Bonus.--Section 308e(e) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking
``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
(f) Ready Reserve Enlistment and Reenlistment Bonus.--
Section 308h(g) of title 37, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December
31, 2002''.
(g) Prior Service Enlistment Bonus.--Section 308i(f) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking
``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
(h) Repayment of Education Loans for Certain Health
Professionals Who Serve in the Selected Reserve.--Section
16302(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``January 1, 2000'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``January 1, 2003''.

SEC. 105. THREE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL
PAY AUTHORITIES FOR NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATES,
REGISTERED NURSES, AND NURSE ANESTHETISTS.

(a) Nurse Officer Candidate Accession Program.--Section
2130a(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31,
2002''.
(b) Accession Bonus for Registered Nurses.--Section
302d(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31,
2002''.

[[Page 911]]

(c) Incentive Special Pay for Nurse Anesthetists.--Section
302e(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``December 31, 2002''.
TITLE II--RETIRED PAY

SEC. 201. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN RETIRED PAY MULTIPLIER FOR
POST-JULY 31, 1986 MEMBERS RETIRING WITH LESS
THAN 30 YEARS OF SERVICE.

Section 1409(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking paragraph (2).

SEC. 202. MODIFIED ``CPI-1'' COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT.

Paragraph (3) of section 1401a(b) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Post-august 1, 1986 members.--The Secretary shall
increase the retired pay of each member and former member who
first became a member of a uniformed service on or after
August 1, 1986, by the percent equal to the difference
between the percent determined under paragraph (2) and 1
percent, except that, if the percent determined under
paragraph (2) is less than 3 percent, the Secretary shall
increase the retired pay by the lesser of the percent so
determined or 2 percent.''.

SEC. 203. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Computation of Retired Pay.--(1) Chapter 71 of title
10, United States Code, is further amended--
(A) in section 1409(b)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and
(3)'' and inserting thereof ``paragraph (2)''; and
(iii) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
(B) in section 1410, by striking ``if--'' and all that
follows and inserting the following: ``if increases in the
retired pay of the member or former member under section
1401a(b) of this title had been computed as provided in
paragraph (2) of that section (rather than under paragraph
(3) of that section).''
(2)(A) The heading for section 1410 of such title is
amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 1410. Members entering on or after August 1, 1986:
restoration of COLA increases to full-COLA amounts at age
62''.

(B) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 71 of such title is
amended to read as follows:

``1410. Members entering on or after August 1, 1986: restoration of
COLA increases to full-COLA amounts at age 62.''.
(b) Survivor Benefit Plan.--Chapter 73 of such title is
amended--
(1) in section 1447(6)(A), by striking ``(determined
without regard to any reduction under section 1409(b)(2) of
this title)'';
(2) in section 1451(h), by striking paragraph (3); and
(3) in section 1452(c), by striking paragraph (4).

SEC. 204. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this title shall take effect on
October 1, 1999.
TITLE III--THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN

SEC. 301. PARTICIPATION IN THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN.

(a) Authority.--Subchapter III of chapter 84 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Sec. 8440e. Members of the uniformed services in active
service

``(a) Participation Authorized.--(1) A member of the armed
forces in active service may participate in the Thrift
Savings Plan in accordance with this section.
``(2) An election to contribute to the Thrift Savings Fund
under paragraph (1) may be made only during a period provided
under section 8432(b) for individuals subject to this
chapter.
``(b) Applicability of Thrift Savings Plan Provisions.--
Except as otherwise provided in this section, the provisions
of this subchapter and subchapter VII of this chapter shall
apply with respect to members of the uniformed services
making contributions to the Thrift Savings Fund as if such
members were employees within the meaning of section
8401(11).
``(c) Maximum Contribution From Basic Pay.--The amount
contributed by a member of the uniformed services for any pay
period out of basic pay may not exceed--
``(1) for any pay period 5 percent of such member's basic
pay for such pay period, plus
``(2) an amount equal to the amount of any enlistment or
reenlistment bonus paid to the member under section 308,
308a, or 308f of title 37 in connection with an enlistment
for active service.
``(d) Agency Contributions Prohibited.--No contribution
under section 8432(c) of this title may be made for the
benefit of a member of the uniformed services making
contributions to the Thrift Savings Fund under subsection
(a).
``(e) Certain Transfers Not Considered Separations.--A
transfer of a member from one armed force to another armed
force without a break in active service of more than 30 days
shall not be considered to be a separation from service for
the purposes of establishing an entitlement of the member to
a withdrawal from the member's account under the Thrift
Savings Plan.
``(f) Regulations.--The Executive Director, after
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, may prescribe
regulations to carry out this section.
``(g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) the term `armed forces' has the meaning given the
term in subsection (a)(4) of section 101 of title 10;
``(2) the term `active service' has the meaning given the
term in subsection (d)(3) of such section; and
``(3) the term `basic pay' means basic pay that is payable
under section 204 of title 37.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding after the item relating to section 8440d
the following:

``8440e. Members of the uniformed services in active service.''.

SEC. 302. NONDUPLICATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS.

Section 8432b(b) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Each employee'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (4), each
employee'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph (4)
``(4) No contribution may be made under this section for a
period for which an employee made a contribution under
section 8440e.''.
TITLE IV--MONTGOMERY GI BILL BENEFITS

SEC. 401. INCREASE IN RATES OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR
FULL-TIME EDUCATION.

(a) Increase.--Section 3015 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``$528'' and
inserting ``$600''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``$429'' and
inserting ``$488''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 1999, and shall apply with
respect to educational assistance allowances paid for months
after September 1999. However, no adjustment in rates of
educational assistance shall be made under subsection (g) of
section 3015 of title 38, United States Code, for fiscal year
2000.

SEC. 402. TERMINATION OF REDUCTIONS OF BASIC PAY.

(a) Repeals.--(1) Section 3011 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by striking subsection (b).
(2) Section 3012 of such title is amended by striking
subsection (c).
(3) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2) shall
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and
shall apply to individuals whose initial obligated period of
active duty under section 3011 or 3012 of title 38, United
States Code, as the case may be, begins on or after such
date.
(b) Termination of Reductions in Progress.--Any reduction
in the basic pay of an individual referred to in section
3011(b) of title 38, United States Code, by reason of such
section 3011(b), or of any individual referred to in section
3012(c) of such title by reason of such section 3012(c), as
of the date of the enactment of this Act shall cease
commencing with the first month beginning after such date,
and any obligation of such individual under such section
3011(b) or 3012(c), as the case may be, as of the day before
such date shall be deemed to be fully satisfied as of such
date.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3034(e)(1) of title 38,
United States Code, is amended in the second sentence by
striking ``as soon as practicable'' and all that follows
through ``such additional times'' and inserting ``at such
times''.

SEC. 403. ACCELERATED PAYMENTS OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.

Section 3014 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The Secretary shall
pay''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection (b):
``(b)(1) When the Secretary determines that it is
appropriate to accelerate payments under the regulations
prescribed pursuant to paragraph (6), the Secretary may make
payments of basic educational assistance allowance under this
subchapter on an accelerated basis.
``(2) The Secretary may pay a basic educational assistance
allowance on an accelerated basis only to an individual
entitled to payment of the allowance under this subchapter
who has made a request for payment of the allowance on an
accelerated basis.
``(3) In the event an adjustment under section 3015(g) of
this title in the monthly rate of basic educational
assistance will occur during a period for which a payment of
an allowance is made on an accelerated basis under this
subsection, the Secretary shall--
``(A) pay on an accelerated basis the amount the allowance
otherwise payable under this subchapter for the period
without regard to the adjustment under that section; and
``(B) pay on the date of the adjustment any additional
amount of the allowance that is payable for the period as a
result of the adjustment.
``(4) The entitlement to a basic educational assistance
allowance under this subchapter of an individual who is paid
an allowance on

[[Page 912]]

an accelerated basis under this subsection shall be charged
at a rate equal to one month for each month of the period
covered by the accelerated payment of the allowance.
``(5) A basic educational assistance allowance shall be
paid on an accelerated basis under this subsection as
follows:
``(A) In the case of an allowance for a course leading to a
standard college degree, at the beginning of the quarter,
semester, or term of the course in a lump-sum amount
equivalent to the aggregate amount of monthly allowance
otherwise payable under this subchapter for the quarter,
semester, or term, as the case may be, of the course.
``(B) In the case of an allowance for a course other than a
course referred to in subparagraph (A)--
``(i) at the later of (I) the beginning of the course, or
(II) a reasonable time after the request for payment by the
individual concerned; and
``(ii) in any amount requested by the individual concerned
up to the aggregate amount of monthly allowance otherwise
payable under this subchapter for the period of the course.
``(6) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for
purposes of making payments of basic educational allowance on
an accelerated basis under this subsection. Such regulations
shall specify the circumstances under which accelerated
payments should be made and include requirements relating to
the request for, making and delivery of, and receipt and use
of such payments.''.

SEC. 404. TRANSFER OF ENTITLEMENT TO EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.

(a) Authority To Transfer to Family Member.--Subchapter II
of chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational
assistance

``(a) The Secretary may, for the purpose of enhancing
recruiting and retention, and at the Secretary's sole
discretion, permit an individual entitled to educational
assistance under this subchapter to elect to transfer such
individual's entitlement to such assistance, in whole or in
part, to the individuals specified in subsection (b).
``(b) An individual's entitlement to educational assistance
may be transferred when authorized under subsection (a) as
follows:
``(1) To the individual's spouse.
``(2) To one or more of the individual's children.
``(3) To a combination of the individuals referred to in
paragraphs (1) and (2).
``(c)(1) An individual electing to transfer an entitlement
to educational assistance under this section shall--
``(A) designate the individual or individuals to whom such
entitlement is being transferred and the percentage of such
entitlement to be transferred to each such individual; and
``(B) specify the period for which the transfer shall be
effective for each individual designated under subparagraph
(A).
``(2) The aggregate amount of the entitlement transferable
by an individual under this section may not exceed the
aggregate amount of the entitlement of such individual to
educational assistance under this subchapter.
``(3) An individual electing to transfer an entitlement
under this section may elect to modify or revoke the transfer
at any time before the use of the transferred entitlement. An
individual shall make the election by submitting written
notice of such election to the Secretary.
``(d)(1) The use of any entitlement transferred under this
section shall be charged against the entitlement of the
individual making the transfer at the rate of one month for
each month of transferred entitlement that is used.
``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), an individual
using entitlement transferred under this section shall be
subject to the provisions of this chapter in such use as if
such individual were entitled to the educational assistance
covered by the transferred entitlement in the individual's
own right.
``(3) Notwithstanding section 3031 of this title, a child
shall complete the use of any entitlement transferred to the
child under this section before the child attains the age of
26 years.
``(e) In the event of an overpayment of educational
assistance with respect to an individual to whom entitlement
is transferred under this section, such individual and the
individual making the transfer under this section shall be
jointly and severally liable to the United States for the
amount of the overpayment for purposes of section 3685 of
this title.
``(f) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for
purposes of this section. Such regulations shall specify the
manner and effect of an election to modify or revoke a
transfer of entitlement under subsection (c)(3).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 3019 the following new item:

``3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational assistance.''.
TITLE V--REPORT

SEC. 501. ANNUAL REPORT ON EFFECTS OF INITIATIVES ON
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION.

(a) Requirement for Report.--On December 1 of each year,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
that sets forth the Secretary's assessment of the effects
that the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by
the Act are having on recruitment and retention of personnel
for the Armed Forces.
(b) First Report.--The first report under this section
shall be submitted not later than December 1, 2000.

The Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999--Summary

military pay raise

4.8% effective January 1, 2000.
Pay raises for FY 2001-2006 ECI + 0.5%.

pay table reform

Targeted raise--weighted to mid-career NCO/Officers.
Minimum 4.8%.
Maximum 10.3%.
Effective July 1, 2000.

military retirement

Restore 50% basic pay retirement benefit at 20 years of
service as proposed by Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs.

montgomery gi bill enhancements

Eliminate $1200 contribution required of members who elect
to participate in the GI Bill.
Provide Services with discretionary authority to permit
members to transfer benefits to immediate family members.
Increase monthly GI Bill benefit from $528 to $600 for
members who serve at least 3 years, and from $429 to $488 for
members who serve less than 3 years.
Permit accelerated lump sum benefits for entire term,
semester or quarter, or for entire courses not leading to
college degree.

thrift savings plan

Allow members to contribute up to 5% of basic pay, and all
or any part of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus, to the
Federal civilian employees Thrift Savings Plan.

extension of critical bonus and special pay authorities

Extend for three years (through December 31, 2002)
authority to pay bonuses and special pays critical to
recruiting and retention of military members. Authority to
pay these bonuses and special pays expires December 31, 1999
under current law.

annual reporting requirement

Require DOD to report annually on the impact of these
programs on recruiting and retention.
Critical Bonus and Special Pay Authorities Extended Through
December 31, 1999:
Enlistment Bonuses for Members With Critical Skills.
Selected Reserve Enlistment Bonus.
Prior Service Enlistment Bonus.
Ready Reserve Enlistment and Reenlistment Bonus.
Reenlistment Bonus for Active Members.
Selected Reserve Reenlistment Bonus.
Selected Reserve Affiliation Bonus.
Aviation Officer Retention Bonus.
Special Pay for Nuclear-Qualified Officers Extending Period
of Active Service.
Nuclear Career Accession Bonus.
Nuclear Career Annual Incentive Bonus.
Special Pay for Health Professionals in Critically Short
Wartime Specialties.
Special Pay for Enlisted Members Assigned to Certain High
Priority Units.
Repayment of Education Loans for Certain Health
Professionals Who Serve in the Selected Reserve.
Nurse Officer Candidate Accession Program.
Accession Bonus for Registered Nurses.
Incentive Special Pay for Nurse Anesthetists.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to lend my support to the
Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999. For the
first time since the late 1970's, military readiness is suffering
significantly. We are now paying the price for asking our people to do
much more with less and less. As the Service Chiefs have testified, the
feedback from our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines is clear and
unambiguous. Low pay, the 40 percent retirement system, military health
and education benefits that could stand a shot in the arm--we now have
plenty of evidence these things are keeping us from retaining our best
and brightest. Equally troubling, our recruiting picture across the
services is dismal. These downward trends cannot continue. The Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warns that ``there is no more shock
absorbency left in the system,'' and further that if the trends
continue, we will ``find ourselves in a nosedive that might cause
irreparable damage to this great force.'' The Army and Air Force Chiefs
of Staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the
Marine Corps all agree that we are only five years away from a hollow
force. Put simply, we are placing at risk the future readiness of the
finest fighting force in the world.

[[Page 913]]

Mr. President, this bill provides the resources to begin to reverse
the steady downward spirals we've seen in military recruiting and
retention. It is also a strong signal to our most important asset--our
men and women in uniform and their families--that we are serious about
taking care of them. In my view, it is nothing more than adequately
compensating our people for the job they are already performing. And it
is exactly the kind of ``fix'' we in the Congress can, and should,
support.
I would like to make one additional point. While we have many
pressing longer-term concerns, such as modernizing and recapitalizing
our forces for the next century and doing something about the billions
of dollars of excess infrastructure the services continue to carry, we
simply can't afford to take a ``wait and see'' approach when it comes
to taking care of our people. To do otherwise places at risk our future
readiness and everything we've worked for, like the ability to mount an
operation like ``Desert Fox'' and execute it brilliantly. We can't let
that happen.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Cleland,
Senator Robb, and a number of my colleagues today in introducing The
Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999. Secretary
Cohen, General Shelton, and the Joint Chiefs have told us that the
single greatest challenge they face right now is recruiting and
retaining the people we need to man our military services. This
legislation will go a long way to ensuring that we continue to attract
and retain the high quality people that make up our military services
today.
Just last month, the men and women of our Armed Forces demonstrated
once again that they are by far the best trained, best equipped, best
disciplined and most highly skilled and motivated military force in the
world. Operation Desert Fox was a large-scale military operation that
was carried out flawlessly. It involved 40,000 troops from bases
virtually around the world. Over 40 ships performed strike and support
roles. Over 600 aircraft sorties were flown in 4 days, and 300 of these
were night strike operations.
General Zinni, the commander in charge of Operation Desert Fox,
pointed out that even in peacetime an exercise of this scale is very
dangerous and stressful. To have achieved all of the objectives of
Operation Desert Fox without a single United States or British casualty
and without any degradation of our ongoing efforts in Bosnia, Korea,
and other critical areas around the world was truly remarkable.
Mr. President, the key to the success of Operation Desert Fox--and
the key to the strength and capability of our Armed Forces--is the men
and women who serve in uniform. We must do everything we can to ensure
that we continue to recruit, train and retain the best of America to
serve in our Armed Forces.
Over the past year, there have been growing indications that the
military services were beginning to have problems in both recruiting
and retention, particularly retaining highly skilled mid-grade officers
and enlisted whose skills are in demand in the private sector. To
address these problems, last month Secretary Cohen and General Shelton
announced a package of improvements in military pay and retirement
benefits that will be part of President Clinton's fiscal year 2000
budget. In testimony before the Armed Services Committee on January 5
of this year, General Shelton and all of thee Joint Chiefs said that
enactment of this package of pay and benefits was their highest
priority.
Mr. President, the bill my colleagues and I are introducing today
includes all three parts of the Defense Department's pay and retirement
package, as well as some of the key recommendations from the recent
report of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans
Transition Assistance.
First, it includes an across-the-board pay raise for all military
members of 4.8 percent, effective January 1, 2000. This is slightly
higher than the 4.4 percent recommended by Secretary Cohen and the
Joint Chiefs, but it carries out their stated objective of increasing
military pay in FY2000 by one-half a percentage point above the annual
increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). This 4.8 percent increase
will be the largest increase in military pay since 1982.
In addition, our legislation calls for annual increases in military
pay of one-half percent above the annual increase in the ECI in each
year of the Future Years Defense Plan. Again, this reflects DOD's
current plan, and is designed to bring military pay more in line with
private sector wages as measured by the ECI.
The second part of DOD's plan included in our legislation is a
targeted pay raise that would be effective July 1, 2000. Taken in
conjunction with the January 1 4.8-percent across-the-board pay
increase, this targeted pay raise increases the pay of mid-grade
officers and enlisted personnel, and also for key promotions points,
between 4.8 and 10.3 percent.
The third part of the DOD plan included in this legislation is a
revision to the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986. This portion of
the legislation would restore the 50-percent basic pay benefit for
military members who retire at 20 years of service.
In addition to the package of pay and retirement benefits proposed by
Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs, the legislation we are
introducing today includes several key recommendations from the recent
report of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans
Transition Assistance specifically designed to help the military
services recruiting and retention efforts.
The most important of these recommendations is a series of
improvements to the Montgomery GI Bill. Education benefits are a very
important attraction for young people entering the armed forces. Our
legislation would increase the basic GI Bill benefit from $528 to $600
per month and eliminate the current requirement for entering service
members to contribute $1,200 of their own money to participate in the
program. Both of these changes were recommended by the Congressional
Commission of Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance to
increase the attractiveness of the GI Bill to potential new recruits.
The Commission also recommended, and our legislation includes, a
provision to allow service members to transfer their earned GI bill
benefits to one or more immediate family members. It is my view, Mr.
President, that this will prove to be a very powerful recruiting and
retention incentive.
This legislation also includes a provision that would allow military
members to participate in the current Thrift Savings Plan available to
Federal civil servants. Under our proposal, which follows the
recommendation of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and
Veterans Transition Assistance, military members would be permitted to
contribute up to 5 percent of their basic pay, and all or any part of
any enlistment or reenlistment bonus, to the Thrift Savings Plan.
Finally, this legislation includes a very important provision that
extends for 3 years--through December 31, 2002--the authority for the
military services to pay a number of bonuses and special and incentive
pays that are critical to recruiting and retaining highly skilled
military members. Under current law, the authority to pay these bonuses
and special pays runs out at the end of this year. Renewing this
authority now through the end of 2002 will reassure military personnel
managers--and military members themselves--that these crucial
authorities will continue to be available to them.
Mr. President, detailed costing of this legislation will have to be
done by the Congressional Budget Office over the next several weeks. In
my view, however, the provisions contained in this legislation will not
require us to increase the funding for national defense above the
levels I understand will be proposed in President Clinton's FY2000-2006
Future Years Defense Plan. We should be able to accommodate any
increase in funding necessary for these initiatives from lower priority
programs.

[[Page 914]]

I believe this package of pay and benefits is fair and will ensure
that we continue to attract and retain high quality people to serve in
our armed forces. All of us are committed to the well-being of our
military members and their families. There may be some aspects of this
legislation that require improvement or modification, and that can be
done as the Armed Services Committee begins to review this bill and any
other bills that are introduced to address the concerns we all have in
this area.
In closing, I want to recognize the leadership of the author of this
legislation, Senator Max Cleland. Fortunately for the Senate and for
the men and women of our armed forces, he will continue to serve as the
Ranking Democratic member of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Armed
Services Committee during the 106th Congress. Senator Robb of our
Committee has also played an important role in drafting this
legislation. Both Senator Cleland and Senator Robb have a tremendous
commitment to the welfare of the men and women of the Armed Forces and
their families.
Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Cleland,
Senator Robb, and all of the cosponsors of this legislation and with
all of our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in the months
ahead to secure enactment of this important legislation.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all of us commend our troops for their
superb performance. Their extraordinary efforts last year in Operation
Desert Fox, Hurricane Mitch, Operation Provide Comfort, and in Kenya,
and Tanzania highlighted only a few of their significant contributions
to the Nation in 1998.
America continues to rely heavily on its Armed Forces, and we want
our service members and families to know how proud we in Congress are
of their contributions to our country and to our national defense. We
are deeply indebted to them for their service, and we have the highest
respect for their dedication, their patriotism, and their courage.
This past year once again demonstrated the importance of guaranteeing
that our military forces are well prepared to meet any challenge.
However, I am very concered about the future readiness of our Armed
Forces. I am troubled by reports of declining readiness, poor
retention, and recruiting shortfalls.
Two years ago the Army reduced its recuiting standards, and now the
Navy has followed suit. Secretary of the Navy Danzig has announced that
the Navy is lowering its educational standards for new recruits. This
and other reductions in personnel standards by the Navy are taking
place because the Navy fell short of its recruiting goals last year for
the first time since the draft ended in 1973. Secretary Danzig also
recently announced that retention of Naval Officers is so low that the
Navy will have 50 percent fewer officers than required to man its ships
in the coming years. These are serious concerns that must be addressed,
and this legislation does so.
Congress must do all it can to provide for our men and women in the
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. They have worked hard for us.
Now we must provide the support they need to do their jobs and care for
their families.
The Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act is a
substantial step toward meeting these urgent needs of our service
members, and will encourage more of these highly skilled and well-
trained men and women to remain in the military ranks. I also hope that
the provisions in this act will encourage more of the Nation's young
men and women to join the military and serve their country in that way.
Our proposal increases base pay for our troops.
It contains pay table reforms and guaranteed pay raises above
inflation.
It restores equity to the military retirement system by providing
active duty service members 50 percent retirement after 20 years of
service.
It allows service members to transfer hard-earned educational
benefits to others in their family.
It provides stability by extending authorities for bonus pay and
special pay.
I'm reminded of the words of President Kennedy during an address at
the U.S. Naval Academy in August of 1963. That is what he said about a
career in the Navy:

I can imagine a no more rewarding career. And any man who
may be asked in this century what he did to make his life
worth while, I think can respond with a good deal of pride
and satisfaction: ``I served in the United States Navy.''

My brother was a Navy man, but I'm sure that veterans of all the
other services in those years felt the same way.
I want to do all I can to see that our service men and women feel the
same way today and on into the next century. These personnel issues are
important, and Congress has to deal with them effectively and
responsibly. The Military Recruiting and Retirement Improvement Act
moves our Nation in the right direction, and I look forward to early
and favorable action on it by the Senate.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Cleland and
Senator Levin for their leadership in developing and offering this
bill, and I am pleased to join the other Democratic members of the
Senate Armed Services Committee in cosponsoring this initiative aimed
at addressing the problem of attracting and retaining the right men and
women in the right numbers for our military. The effectiveness of our
military, and its readiness to act immediately to protect our national
interests, must always be a priority concern of Congress, as the
continuing challenges around the world today demonstrate. There are few
things that we will do this year that are more important, because the
security of our country rests squarely on the shoulders of the men and
women that provide our defenses and protect our interests. The
outstanding performance of our forces in Desert Fox shows that the
American military remains more than equal to the task, and that we have
what is unequivocally the number one force in the world. In fact, it
may well be the best we have ever fielded. Even at the height of the
cold war, with the largest military budgets ever, it is difficult to
see those units being able to routinely execute the range of complex
operations with the expertise that our units today are doing.
Nonetheless, our military faces readiness problems, many of them
serious. They include falling recruiting and retention of critical
skills, aging equipment that costs more to keep operating at acceptable
levels of reliability, a need for more support services for a force
with a high percentage of married personnel, and frequent deployments.
Some of these problems will get much more serious unless we act to fix
them soon. The military Chiefs of Staff deserve credit for persevering
in keeping these challenges to our readiness before us. President
Clinton also deserves credit for his decision to increase the defense
budget to address these important problems.
But if this increase only fixes the worst of the short term readiness
problems and diverts us from seriously addressing the hard long-term
questions of readiness and modernization that face us, it could do us
as much harm as good. And if it generates a partisan debate over who
can increase the defense budget the most, we will be rightly criticized
for trying to solve our increasingly complex security problems by
throwing money at them, which makes no more sense as a response to our
military problems than it did for our social problems.
I think what we are spending money on is just as important as how
much we are spending. First, we must demand 100 percent cost
effectiveness, the elimination of waste and redundancy, and that
includes closing down military facilities (bases and depots) that don't
make military-economic sense anymore. Second, as we evaluate our
readiness we must persistently ask, ready for what? What are the
threats we face today and what are the emerging threats we will face
tomorrow. If we do not develop and field the right organizations,
weapons, and concepts to meet future challenges, and as a result fail
to successfully meet one of

[[Page 915]]

those future challenges to our security, it will not matter much to
remind ourselves how ready we were in 1999 when the threats are
probably less than they will be then.
As Under Secretary of Defense Gansler has pointed out, the money
projected to be added to the defense budget, or any increase we can
reasonably foresee, won't be enough to completely pay for both
increasing current readiness and meeting the modernization requirements
of all the Services. So it is extremely important that we take
extraordinary measures to be sure that we are spending our money
wisely.
There is no doubt that spending our money to adequately and fairly
compensate our military men and women is the wisest use of our defense
dollars. Therefore I am very proud that we have recognized this fact by
offering this bill outside the normal defense authorization process.
Doing so signals the importance we place on our military personnel. I
think it is a good bill. I support spending what is necessary. And I
think we have gotten it mostly right.
However, I consider this a good point of departure, not a final
product. I believe we have not yet done all of the critical analysis
necessary to know where the priority should go within the broad
category of pay and allowances to most effectively attract and retain
the right people. I hope the Senate Armed Services Committee will make
this task our highest priority when it is referred to our committee for
action. I am sure we will act in a completely bipartisan way to arrive
at the best result possible. It is a proud bipartisan tradition of the
Senate Armed Services Committee that attracting, retaining, and
providing adequately for our men and women in uniform is among our most
important responsibilities.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues as an original
cosponsor of Senator Cleland's Military Recruiting and Retention
Improvement Act of 1999.
I am glad we are introducing this bill today because it demonstrates
our interest and support for one of the greatest needs of our fighting
men and women--improved pay and benefits. As my colleagues know, this
is one of the most serious issues likely to come before the Armed
Services Committee this year.
Last week, I attended my first hearing as a new member of the
committee. I carefully listened to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as they
outlined their priorities for the fiscal year 2000 budget. Without
exception, each named recruitment and retaining skilled personnel as
their top priority. The Joint Chiefs asked us unequivocally to address
this issue, and I believe the bill we introduce today places us on the
proper path.
This bill will make a difference to men and women when they are
deciding to begin or continue a military career. The 4.8 percent pay
increase will make their daily lives easier and more enjoyable.
Reforming the pay table to provide increases in salaries for midcareer
NCOs and officers will not only reward these dedicated men and women
for the years they have served our country, but provide an incentive
for them to continue their valued work. Renewing the various bonuses
for three more years will let our men and women in uniform know that we
realize and appreciate the sacrifices they make performing dangerous
missions for months at a time far from home.
Perhaps the most unique provisions of the Military Recruiting and
Retention Improvement Act are the educational benefits. Military
personnel would no longer have to contribute $1,200 to take advantage
of the Montgomery GI bill and they would receive increased monthly
benefits. In addition, the Service Secretaries would be given the
discretion to allow military personnel who qualify to transfer their
education benefit to a spouse or child. Education is vital in today's
society, yet financing needed training is an enormous burden to
shoulder. I believe that many of our men and women in uniform choose to
leave the service because they must find a job which will allow them to
pay for their children's education. With the provisions in this bill,
military personnel can continue their careers and more readily afford
the cost of educating their children.
Mr. President, taking care of America's military personnel is one of
the most serious responsibilities Congress has. Every day our men and
women in uniform risk their lives to defend our country and the
principles we champion. It is our obligation to let them know that we
appreciate the sacrifices they make on our behalf. If we do not, the
entire country will suffer.
Finding the best ways to improve our troop's quality of life is a
difficult and complex task. The Military Recruiting and Retention
Improvement Act is a sound proposal, but it is only the beginning to a
comprehensive solution. We will not find a solution if Democrats and
Republicans do not work together. Indeed, care of America's troops has
always been an issue in which we have been united and it is my sincere
hope that this tradition can continue in the 106th Congress.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning
the Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act introduced today
by my esteemed colleague, Senator Cleland. During the last session, the
Joint Chiefs testified to the need for improving pay and retirement for
military personnel as a means to improvement recruitment and retention
of service members. This bill proposes some important steps to
implement those needs, including the extension of critical bonus and
special pay authorities, and deserves careful consideration by the
members of the Senate. It is generally acknowledged, however, that the
way to improve recruitment and retention goes beyond a bigger paycheck.
Senator Cleland's bill includes an important provision directed toward
other motivations to choose military service. I'm speaking of
enhancements to the Montgomery GI bill for education benefits.
Mr. President, this bill will provide major new educational benefits
to service members and their families that will serve as an incentive
to attract high quality recruits to the military. By improving the
educational attainment of service personnel and their families, the
nation stands to benefit in the long term with a better educated
workforce. Surely, we are now able to observe the benefits of full GI
bill assistance for veterans of World War II, the Korean War and the
Vietnam war who were able to receive sufficient resource to complete
college and postgraduate degree programs in compensation for military
service. The nation as a whole has prospered by the talented and
trained workforce who benefitted from the GI bill.
Senator Cleland's bill goes beyond even those benefits which, I
believe were only extended to service members themselves. According to
the legislation proposed, the military services can choose to permit
service members to transfer those educational benefits to immediate
family members should they choose not to use them for themselves.
Again, I believe the nation's labor force will benefit greatly from
such flexibility, not to mention the families of our men and women in
uniform.
Educational benefits provided by the Military Recruiting and
Retention Improvement Act would be increased to reflect the rising cost
of education. Monthly benefits would increase from $528 to $600 per
month for member who serve at least three years, and from $429 to $498
per month for those who serve less than three years. Lump sum tuition
assistance could also be provided under certain circumstances.
Mr. President, these matters are really matters requiring bipartisan
cooperation in the Congress that will benefit our service personnel and
the Nation. I understand that Senator Warner, Chairman of the Armed
Services Committee, has introduced similar legislation to that offered
by Senator Cleland, myself, and others. I am hopeful that we will
review these bills in detail in the Armed Services Committee to
determine the best way to proceed to improve recruitment and retention
that lies at the heart of both bills. As I indicated, recruitment and
retention are affected by a wide variety of causes, only some of which
may be

[[Page 916]]

financial. Senator Cleland's bill calls for an annual report on the
impact of the provisions of the bill on recruitment and retention. I
believe such an assessment is required. I believe as well, that before
the Senate approves legislation, however, it needs to have a more
informed view of factors affecting recruitment and retention and of the
potential impact of increasing assistance to military personnel on pay
and benefits provided to defense and government civilian employees. A
report is due soon from the Department of Defense addressing some of
those issues. I urge my colleague to pay close attention to its
findings and seek answers to the additional questions I have posed in
determining how to proceed with legislation that meets national
security and budgetary requirements.
______

By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr.
Mack):
S. 170. A bill to permit revocation by members of the clergy of their
exemption from Social Security coverage; to the Committee on Finance.

open season for clergy to enroll in social security

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today I am introducing a
bill to allow qualified members of the clergy of all faiths to
participate in the Social Security program.
This bill would provide a two-year ``open season'' during which
certain ministers who previously had filed for an exemption from Social
Security coverage could revoke their exemption. These members of the
clergy would become subject to self-employment taxes, and their
earnings would be credited for Social Security and Medicare purposes.
Before 1968, a minister was exempt from Social Security coverage
unless he or she chose to elect coverage. Since 1968, ministers have
been covered by Social Security unless they file an irrevocable
exemption with the Internal Revenue Service, usually within two years
of beginning their ministry.
On two other occasions, in 1977 and again in 1986, ministers were
given a similar opportunity to revoke their exemption from Social
Security coverage. Despite the existence of these brief ``open season''
periods, many exempt ministers did not take advantage of or have not
had the opportunity to revoke their exemption from Social Security
coverage. Because the exemption from Social Security is irrevocable,
there is no way for them to gain access to the program under current
law.
Only an ``individual who is a duly ordained, commissioned, or
licensed minister of a church, or a member of a religious order who has
not taken a vow of poverty,'' would be able to revoke his or her
exemption from Social Security, under my bill. Of course, this measure
would not permit ministers who already have reached retirement age to
gain access to the Social Security program.
This bill primarily would benefit modestly paid clergy, who are among
the most likely to need Social Security benefits upon retirement. Many
chose not to participate in the Social Security program early in their
careers, before they fully understood the ramifications of filing for
an exemption.
If enacted, this measure would raise about $45 million over the next
five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. CBO has
scored the bill as a revenue raiser and, as a result, it will require
no budget offset. Over the long-term, the legislation would cost money,
but I do not expect its costs to be that significant because CBO has
estimated that only about 3,500 members of the clergy would exercise
the option that this bill provides.
The need for this legislation was brought to my attention by the
distinguished bishop in Manchester, New Hampshire, Reverend Bishop
O'Neil. He made me aware of the hardships facing individual ministers
who may or may not have any retirement income. The bill also has the
endorsement of the U.S. Catholic Conference.
I want to thank my principal cosponsors, Senators Moynihan and Mack,
for their support of this much-needed legislation. Let me also point
out that this measure is identical to Title 8 of H.R. 3433, the Ticket-
to-Work Act, which passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 410
to 1 last June.
In closing, this bill gives members of the clergy a limited
opportunity to enroll in the Social Security system, similar to those
provided by Congress in 1977 and 1986. Mr. President, I hope that all
of my colleagues will support this legislation, which is so important
to a number of clergy in the United States.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 170

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

SECTION 1. REVOCATION BY MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY OF EXEMPTION
FROM SOCIAL SECURITY COVERAGE.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 1402(e)(4) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, any exemption which has been
received under section 1402(e)(1) of such Code by a duly
ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church, a
member of a religious order, or a Christian Science
practitioner, and which is effective for the taxable year in
which this Act is enacted, may be revoked by filing an
application therefor (in such form and manner, and with such
official, as may be prescribed in regulations made under
chapter 2 of such Code), if such application is filed no
later than the due date of the Federal income tax return
(including any extension thereof) for the applicant's second
taxable year beginning after December 31, 1999. Any such
revocation shall be effective (for purposes of chapter 2 of
such Code and title II of the Social Security Act), as
specified in the application, either with respect to the
applicant's first taxable year beginning after December 31,
1999, or with respect to the applicant's second taxable year
beginning after such date, and for all succeeding taxable
years; and the applicant for any such revocation may not
thereafter again file application for an exemption under such
section 1402(e)(1). If the application is filed after the due
date of the applicant's Federal income tax return for a
taxable year and is effective with respect to that taxable
year, it shall include or be accompanied by payment in full
of an amount equal to the total of the taxes that would have
been imposed by section 1401 of such Code with respect to all
of the applicant's income derived in that taxable year which
would have constituted net earnings from self-employment for
purposes of chapter 2 of such Code (notwithstanding paragraph
(4) or (5) of section 1402(c) of such Code) but for the
exemption under section 1402(e)(1) of such Code.
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall apply with
respect to service performed (to the extent specified in such
subsection) in taxable years beginning after December 31,
1999, and with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable
under title II of the Social Security Act on the basis of the
wages and self-employment income of any individual for months
in or after the calendar year in which such individual's
application for revocation (as described in such subsection)
is effective (and lump-sum death payments payable under such
title on the basis of such wages and self-employment income
in the case of deaths occurring in or after such calendar
year).

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Bob
Smith of New Hampshire, in introducing a bill to allow certain members
of the clergy who are currently exempt from Social Security an open
season to ``opt in.''
Under section 1402 of the Internal Revenue Code, a member of the
clergy who is conscientiously, or because of religious principles,
opposed to participation in a public insurance program generally, may
elect to be exempt from Social Security coverage and payroll taxes by
filing an application of exemption with the Internal Revenue Service
within two years of beginning the ministry. To be eligible for the
exemption, the member of the clergy must be an ``individual who is a
fully ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church, or a
member of a religious order who has not taken a vow of poverty.'' Once
elected this exemption is irrevocable.
This legislation would allow members of the clergy who are not
eligible for Social Security a two-year open season in which they could
revoke their exemption. At the time of exemption, many clergy did not
fully understand the ramifications of their actions, and it is not
until later in life, when they are blocked from coverage, that they
realize their need for Social

[[Page 917]]

Security and Medicare. This decision to ``opt in'' would be irrevocable
and all post-election earnings would be subject to the payroll tax and
credited for the purposes of Social Security and Medicare.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this legislation would
affect approximately 3,500 members of the clergy and would increase
revenues by about $45 million over the next five years. Similar
legislation was passed both in the 1977 Social Security Amendments
(Section 316) and in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Section 1704).
This bill has been endorsed by the United States Catholic Conference
and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is a simple but
much-needed measure, and I urge every member of the Senate to support
it.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Schumer,
Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Cleland).
S. 171. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to limit the concentration
of sulfur in gasoline used in motor vehicles; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.

the acid deposition and ozone control act of 1999

______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 172. A bill to reduce acid deposition under the Clean Air Act, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

the clean gasoline act of 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills
which will make significant reductions in the pollutants which most
degrade our national air quality. The Acid Deposition and Ozone Control
Act of 1999 and the Clean Gasoline Act of 1999 would reduce sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions through national ``cap and trade''
programs, and reduce the sulfur content in gasoline, respectively.
We have come a long way since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
Since that last reauthorization effort, we have successfully reduced
emissions of the pollutants we set out to regulate and tremendously
expanded our understanding of the causes and effects of major
environmental problems such as acid deposition, ozone pollution,
decreased visibility, and eutrophication of coastal waters. We can be
proud of these accomplishments, but we have a long way to go yet. Since
1990 we have learned, for instance, that the sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emissions reductions required under the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 are insufficient to prevent continued damage to
human health and sensitive ecosystems. We have also learned that
nitrogen oxides (NOX), which we largely ignored nine years
ago, are significant contributors to our nation's many air quality
deficiencies. And finally, we have demonstrated that legislation
containing regulatory flexibility and market incentives is preferable
to the traditional ``command and control'' approach. My bills seek to
build upon this new body of knowledge by combining the best and most
current scientific evaluation of our environmental needs with the most
effective and efficient regulatory framework.
The scientific data indicate that the 1990 Amendments did not go far
enough to prevent continued human health and ecosystem damage from
SO2 and NOX. We now know that ozone pollution,
caused in large part by NOX emissions, can have a terrible
effect on human respiratory functions. The Harvard University School of
Public Health's 1996 study of ozone pollution established a strong link
between ground level ozone pollution and 30,000-50,000 emergency room
visits during the 1993 and 1994 ozone seasons. Ecosystems continue to
suffer, too. The 1998 report of the National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program (NAPAP) indicates that sulfate concentrations of
surface waters in the Southern Appalachian Mountains have been
increasing steadily for more than a decade, making for an increasingly
inhospitable environment for trout and other fish species. There are
other types of problems, too. Visitors to our nation's national parks
and wilderness areas find that it is more difficult than ever before to
enjoy these scenic vistas. It is becoming increasingly difficult to see
through the haze which clogs the air in our national parks.
Scientists have produced volumes of scientific literature on ozone,
acid deposition, regional haze, and other air quality problems over the
past decade. We now know much more about the causes of these problems
than we did in 1990. We know that NOX emissions, which we
underestimated as a cause of air pollution, in fact play an important
role in the formation of ground level ozone, acide deposition, and
nitrogen deposition. We know that sulfur dioxide not only contributes
significantly to acid deposition, but also to reduced visibility in our
great scenic vistas.
The most recent NAPAP report reflects this changing body of
knowledge. The NAPAP report notes that NOX make a highly
significant contribution to the occurrence of acid deposition and
nitrogen saturation on both land and water. According to NAPAP, a
majority of Adirondack lakes have not shown recovery from high acidity
levels first detected decades ago. Forests, streams, and rivers outside
of New York, in the Front Range of Colorado, the Great Smoky Mountains
of Tennessee, and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains of
California are also now showing the effects of acidification and
nitrogen saturation.
And mountains are not the only ecosystems affected. The Ecological
Society of America, the nation's leading professional society of
ecologists, issued a report in late 1997 which notes that airborne
deposition of nitrogen accounts for a significant percentage of the
nitrogen content of coastal water bodies stretching from the Gulf Coast
up and around the entire length of the eastern seaboard. The Chesapeake
Bay is believed to receive 27 percent of its nitrogen load directly
from the atmosphere. For Tampa Bay, the figure is 28 percent. For the
coastal waters of the Newport River in North Carolina, more than 35
percent.
Clearly, any serious effort to address these problems must address
NOX emissions and further reduce SO2 emissions.
My bills address the major sources of NOX and
SO2. The Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act of 1998 would
affect ``stationary sources'' of NOX and SO2,
mainly electric utilities, and the Clean Gasoline Act of 1999 would
affect ``mobile sources'', mainly cars and trucks, of NOx and other
tailpipe emissions.

Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act: Controlling Stationary Sources

When we designed the SO2 Allowance Program in 1990, our
task was simplified by the fact that over 85 percent of SO2
emissions originated in fossil fuel-fired electric utilities. Utility
emissions account for just under 30 percent of total NOX
emissions, a smaller share, but large enough to merit attention. My
bill establishes a year-round cap-and-trade program for NOX
emissions from the utility sector and mandates a further 50 percent cut
in emissions of SO2 through the existing cap and trade
program. Because of the human health risks of urban ozone pollution
during the summer months, the Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act
requires utilities to surrender two allowances for each ton of
NOX emitted between May and September. During the remainder
of the year, only one allowance is required to produce one ton of
NOX emissions. In this way, utilities are encouraged to make
the greatest reductions during the summer, when the collective risk to
human health from these emissions is higher.
In light of the impressive success and cost effectiveness of the cap
and trade program which regulates SO2, the Acid Deposition
and Ozone Control Act is designed to build onto it as seamlessly as
possible by establishing a ``Phase III'' under the existing program.
Under the proposed Phase III, total utility emissions of SO2
would be reduced to just under 4.5 million tons per year, significantly
reducing acid deposition and improving visibility in our Nation's
scenic vistas.

The Clean Gasoline Act of 1999: Addressing Mobile Sources

This bill establishes a national, year-round cap on the sulfur
content of gasoline sold in the United States. The bill

[[Page 918]]

would extend the so-called California gasoline sulfur standard
nationwide. The benefits of reducing gasoline sulfur would be dramatic
and virtually immediate.
The presence of sulfur in gasoline increases vehicle emissions
because sulfur poisons the catalytic converter used in the vehicle's
emissions control system. Sulfur is a pollutant only: its presence (or
absence) does not effect engine performance. In the 1970's, we fought
to remove lead from gasoline to make possible the introduction of
catalytic converters. Until recently, we did not appreciate that sulfur
is a catalyst poison, too. All vehicles in the national fleet with
catalytic converters--virtually all vehicles--produce higher levels of
NOX because of the high levels of sulfur in the gasoline
they burn.
The cost of gasoline would rise under this bill--by a nickel a gallon
at the retail level, at most. For a car driven 15,000 miles per year
that achieves 15 miles per gallon, the cost of the Clean Gasoline Act
would be $50 annually. Keep in mind, however, that gasoline prices,
adjusted for inflation, are cheaper now than they have been at any time
since 1950, the beginning point of our analysis. And the benefits to
human health and the environment of reducing gasoline sulfur far
outweigh this modest cost.
A recent study by the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control
Officials (STAPPA-ALAPCO) found that reducing gasoline sulfur levels to
40 parts per million, the California standard, would bring an air
quality benefit equivalent to removing nearly 54 million vehicles from
our national fleet. New York City alone would have a benefit equal to
removing 3 million vehicles from its streets. We must not pass up the
opportunity to make such large gains in emissions reductions for such a
minor cost.
As I mentioned earlier, I am proud of what we accomplished in
enacting the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The SO2
Allowance Program established by that legislation has achieved
extraordinary benefits at program compliance costs less than half of
initial projections. The efficacy of the approach is proven. The
current science indicates, however, that we did not go far enough in
1990 in setting our emissions reduction targets. The bills I have
introduced endeavor to build upon our accomplishments thus far, and to
begin the work which remains to be done. I encourage my colleagues to
join myself and Mr. Schumer in sponsoring the Acid Deposition and Ozone
Control Act of 1999, and to join myself and Mr. Levin, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cleland, and Mr. Jeffords in sponsoring the
Clean Gasoline Act of 1999.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 171

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 ``Clean Gasoline Act of
1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) according to the National Air Quality and Emissions
Trends Report of the Environmental Protection Agency, dated
1996, motor vehicles account for a major portion of the
emissions that degrade the air quality of the United States:
49 percent of nitrogen oxides emissions, 26 percent of
emissions of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
smaller than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM-10), and 78
percent of carbon monoxide emissions;
(2)(A) failure to control gasoline sulfur concentration
adversely affects catalytic converter function for all
vehicles in the national vehicle fleet; and
(B) research performed collaboratively by the auto and oil
industries demonstrates that when sulfur concentration in
motor vehicle gasoline is reduced from 450 parts per million
(referred to in this section as ``ppm'') to 50 ppm--
(i) hydrocarbon emissions are reduced by 18 percent;
(ii) carbon monoxide emissions are reduced by 19 percent;
and
(iii) nitrogen oxide emissions are reduced by 8 percent;
(3)(A) recent studies conducted by the Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers, and the Coordinating
Research Council confirm that sulfur in vehicle fuel impairs
to an even greater degree the emission controls of Low-
Emission Vehicles (referred to in this section as ``LEVs'')
and Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicles (referred to in this section
as ``ULEVs'');
(B) because sulfur-induced impairment of advanced
technology emission control systems is not fully reversible
under normal in-use driving conditions, a nationwide, year-
round sulfur standard is necessary to prevent impairment of
vehicles' emission control systems as the vehicles travel
across State lines;
(C) industry research on LEVs and ULEVs demonstrates that
when gasoline sulfur concentration is lowered from 330 ppm to
40 ppm--
(i) hydrocarbon emissions are reduced by 34 percent;
(ii) carbon monoxide emissions are reduced by 43 percent;
and
(iii) nitrogen oxide emissions are reduced by 51 percent;
(D) failure to control sulfur in gasoline will inhibit the
introduction of more fuel-efficient technologies, such as
direct injection engines and ``NOX trap'' after-
treatment technology, which require fuel with a very low
concentration of sulfur;
(E) the technology for removing sulfur from fuel during the
refining process is readily available and currently in use;
and
(F) the reduction of sulfur concentrations in fuel to the
level required by this Act is a cost-effective means of
improving air quality;
(4)(A) gasoline sulfur levels in the United States--
(i) average between 300 and 350 ppm and range as high as
1000 ppm; and
(ii) are far higher than the levels allowed in many other
industrialized nations, and higher than the levels allowed by
some developing nations;
(B) the European Union recently approved a standard of 150
ppm to take effect in 2000, to be phased down to 30 through
50 ppm by 2005;
(C) Japan has a standard of 50 ppm; and
(D) gasoline and diesel fuel in Australia, New Zealand,
Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand, and Finland have significantly
lower sulfur concentrations than comparable gasoline and
diesel fuel in the United States;
(5)(A) California is the only State that regulates sulfur
concentration in all gasoline sold; and
(B) in June 1996, California imposed a 2-part limitation on
sulfur concentration in gasoline: a 40 ppm per gallon
maximum, or a 30 ppm per gallon annual average with an 80 ppm
per gallon maximum;
(6)(A) a 1998 regulatory impact analysis by the California
Air Resources Board reports that air quality improved
significantly in the year following the introduction of low
sulfur gasoline; and
(B) the California Air Resources Board credits low sulfur
gasoline with reducing ozone levels by 10 percent on the
South Coast, 12 percent in Sacramento, and 2 percent in the
Bay Area; and
(7)(A) reducing sulfur concentration in gasoline to the
level required by this Act is a cost-effective pollution
prevention measure that will provide significant and
immediate benefits; and
(B) unlike vehicle hardware requirements that affect only
new model years, sulfur control produces the benefits of
reduced emissions of air pollutants across the vehicle fleet
immediately upon implementation.

SEC. 3. SULFUR CONCENTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR GASOLINE.

(a) In General.--Section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7545) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (p); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (n) the following:
``(o) Sulfur Concentration Requirements for Gasoline.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Requirement.--Subject to subparagraph (B), effective
beginning 4 years after the date of enactment of this
paragraph, a person shall not manufacture, sell, supply,
offer for sale or supply, dispense, transport, or introduce
into commerce motor vehicle gasoline that contains a
concentration of sulfur that is greater than 40 parts per
million per gallon of gasoline.
``(B) Alternative method of measuring compliance.--A person
shall not be considered to be in violation of paragraph (1)
if the person manufactures, sells, supplies, offers for sale
or supply, dispenses, transports, or introduces into
commerce, during any 1-year period, motor vehicle gasoline
that contains a concentration of sulfur that is greater than
40 but less than or equal to 80 parts per million per gallon
of gasoline, if the average concentration of sulfur in the
motor vehicle gasoline manufactured, sold, supplied, offered
for sale or supply, dispensed, transported, or introduced
into commerce by the person during the period is less than 30
parts per million per gallon of gasoline.
``(C) Regulations.--The Administrator shall promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to carry out this paragraph.

[[Page 919]]

``(2) Lower sulfur concentration.--
``(A) Report.--
``(i) Initial report.--Not later than 6 years after the
date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall
submit to Congress a report that documents the effects of use
of low sulfur motor vehicle gasoline on urban and regional
air quality.
``(ii) Followup report.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of the initial report under clause (i), the
Administrator shall submit a report updating the information
contained in the initial report.
``(B) Regulation.--After the date of the initial report
under subparagraph (A)(i), the Administrator may promulgate a
regulation to establish maximum and average allowable sulfur
concentrations in motor vehicle gasoline that are lower than
the concentrations specified in paragraph (1) if the
Administrator determines that--
``(i) research conducted after the date of enactment of
this subsection indicates that significant air quality
benefits would result from a reduction in allowable sulfur
concentration in motor vehicle gasoline; or
``(ii) advanced vehicle technologies have been developed
that can significantly reduce emissions of air pollutants
from motor vehicles but that require motor vehicle gasoline
with a lower concentration of sulfur than that specified in
paragraph (1).''.
(b) Penalties and Injunctions.--Section 211(d) of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or (n)'' each place it
appears and inserting ``(n), or (o)''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and (n)'' each place it
appears and inserting ``(n), and (o)''.
____

S. 172

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 ``Acid Deposition and Ozone
Control Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) reductions of atmospheric nitrogen oxide and sulfur
dioxide from utility plants, in addition to the reductions
required under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.),
are needed to reduce acid deposition and its serious adverse
effects on public health, natural resources, building
structures, sensitive ecosystems, and visibility;
(2) nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide contribute to the
development of fine particulates, suspected of causing human
mortality and morbidity to a significant extent;
(3) regional nitrogen oxide reductions of 50 percent in the
Eastern United States, in addition to the reductions required
under the Clean Air Act, may be necessary to protect
sensitive watersheds from the effects of nitrogen deposition;
(4) without reductions in nitrogen oxide and sulfur
dioxide, the number of acidic lakes in the Adirondacks in the
State of New York is expected to increase by up to 40 percent
by 2040; and
(5) nitrogen oxide is highly mobile and can lead to ozone
formation hundreds of miles from the emitting source.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to recognize the current scientific understanding that
emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, and the acid
deposition resulting from emissions of nitrogen oxide and
sulfur dioxide, present a substantial human health and
environmental risk;
(2) to require reductions in nitrogen oxide and sulfur
dioxide emissions;
(3) to support the efforts of the Ozone Transport
Assessment Group to reduce ozone pollution;
(4) to reduce utility emissions of nitrogen oxide by 70
percent from 1990 levels; and
(5) to reduce utility emissions of sulfur dioxide by 50
percent after the implementation of phase II sulfur dioxide
requirements under section 405 of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7651d).

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Affected facility.--The term ``affected facility''
means a facility with 1 or more combustion units that serve
at least 1 electricity generator with a capacity equal to or
greater than 25 megawatts.
(3) NOX allowance.--The term ``NOX
allowance'' means a limited authorization under section 4(3)
to emit, in accordance with this Act, quantities of nitrogen
oxide.
(4) MMBTU.--The term ``mmBtu'' means 1,000,000 British
thermal units.
(5) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the Nitrogen Oxide
Allowance Program established under section 4.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means the 48 contiguous
States and the District of Columbia.

SEC. 4. NITROGEN OXIDE ALLOWANCE PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--
(1) Establishment.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish a
program to be known as the ``Nitrogen Oxide Allowance
Program''.
(2) Scope.--The Program shall be conducted in the 48
contiguous States and the District of Columbia.
(3) NOX allowances.--
(A) Allocation.--The Administrator shall allocate under
paragraph (4)--
(i) for each of calendar years 2002 through 2004, 5,400,000
NOX allowances; and
(ii) for calendar year 2005 and each calendar year
thereafter, 3,000,000 NOX allowances.
(B) Use.--Each NOX allowance shall authorize an
affected facility to emit--
(i) 1 ton of nitrogen oxide during each of the months of
October, November, December, January, February, March, and
April of any year; or
(ii) \1/2\ ton of nitrogen oxide during each of the months
of May, June, July, August, and September of any year.
(4) Allocation.--
(A) Definition of total electric power.--In this paragraph,
the term ``total electric power'' means all electric power
generated by utility and nonutility generators for
distribution, including electricity generated from solar,
wind, hydro power, nuclear power, cogeneration facilities,
and the combustion of fossil fuel.
(B) Allocation of allowances.--The Administrator shall
allocate annual NOX allowances to each of the
States in proportion to the State's share of the total
electric power generated in all of the States.
(C) Publication.--The Administrator shall publish in the
Federal Register a list of each State's NOX
allowance allocation--
(i) by December 1, 2000, for calendar years 2002 through
2004;
(ii) by December 1, 2002, for calendar years 2005 through
2007; and
(iii) by December 1 of each calendar year after 2002, for
the calendar year that begins 61 months thereafter.
(5) Intrastate distribution.--
(A) In general.--A State may submit to the Administrator a
report detailing the distribution of NOX
allowances of the State to affected facilities in the State--
(i) not later than September 30, 2001, for calendar years
2002 through 2004;
(ii) not later than September 30, 2003, for calendar years
2005 through 2012; and
(iii) not later than September 30 of each calendar year
after 2013, for the calendar year that begins 61 months
thereafter.
(B) Action by the administrator.--If a State submits a
report under subparagraph (A) not later than September 30 of
the calendar year specified in subparagraph (A), the
Administrator shall distribute the NOX allowances
to affected facilities in the State as detailed in the
report.
(C) Late submission of report.--A report submitted by a
State after September 30 of a specified year shall be of no
effect.
(D) Distribution in absence of a report.--
(i) In general.--Subject to subsection (e), if a State does
not submit a report under subparagraph (A) not later than
September 30 of the calendar year specified in subparagraph
(A), the Administrator shall, not later than November 30 of
that calendar year, distribute the NOX allowances
for the calendar years specified in subparagraph (A) to each
affected facility in the State in proportion to the affected
facility's share of the total electric power generated in the
State.
(ii) Determination of facility's share.--In determining an
affected facility's share of total electric power generated
in a State, the Administrator shall consider the net electric
power generated by the facility and the State to be--

(I) for calendar years 2002 through 2004, the average
annual amount of electric power generated, by the facility
and the State, respectively, in calendar years 1997 through
1999;
(II) for calendar years 2005 through 2012, the average
annual amount of electric power generated, by the facility
and the State, respectively, in calendar years 1999 through
2001; and
(III) for calendar year 2013 and each calendar year
thereafter, the amount of electric power generated, by the
facility and the State, respectively, in the calendar year 5
years previous to the year for which the determination is
made.

(E) Judicial review.--A distribution of NOX
allowances by the Administrator under subparagraph (D) shall
not be subject to judicial review.
(b) NOX Allowance Transfer System.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall promulgate a
NOX allowance system regulation under which a
NOX allowance allocated under this Act may be
transferred among affected facilities and any other person.
(2) Establishment.--The regulation shall establish the
NOX allowance system under this section, including
requirements for the allocation, transfer, and use of
NOX allowances under this Act.
(3) Use of noX allowances.--The regulation
shall--
(A) prohibit the use (but not the transfer in accordance
with paragraph (5)) of any NOX allowance before
the calendar year for which the NOX allowance is
allocated; and
(B) provide that the unused NOX allowances shall
be carried forward and added to

[[Page 920]]

NOX allowances allocated for subsequent years.
(4) Certification of transfer.--A transfer of a
NOX allowance shall not be effective until a
written certification of the transfer, signed by a
responsible official of the person making the transfer, is
received and recorded by the Administrator.
(c) NOX Allowance Tracking System.--Not later
than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Administrator shall promulgate regulations for issuing,
recording, and tracking the use and transfer of
NOX allowances that shall specify all necessary
procedures and requirements for an orderly and competitive
functioning of the NOX allowance system.
(d) Permit Requirements.--A NOX allowance
allocation or transfer shall, on recordation by the
Administrator, be considered to be a part of each affected
facility's operating permit requirements, without a
requirement for any further permit review or revision.
(e) New Source Reserve.--
(1) In general.--For a State for which the Administrator
distributes NOX allowances under subsection
(a)(5)(D), the Administrator shall place 10 percent of the
total annual NOX allowances of the State in a new
source reserve to be distributed by the Administrator--
(A) for calendar years 2002 through 2005, to sources that
commence operation after 1998;
(B) for calendar years 2006 through 2011, to sources that
commence operation after 2000; and
(C) for calendar year 2012 and each calendar year
thereafter, to sources that commence operation after the
calendar year that is 5 years previous to the year for which
the distribution is made.
(2) Share.--For a State for which the Administrator
distributes NOX allowances under subsection
(a)(5)(D), the Administrator shall distribute to each new
source a number of NOX allowances sufficient to
allow emissions by the source at a rate equal to the lesser
of the new source performance standard or the permitted level
for the full nameplate capacity of the source, adjusted pro
rata for the number of months of the year during which the
source operates.
(3) Unused NOX allowances.--
(A) In general.--During the period of calendar years 2000
through 2005, the Administrator shall conduct auctions at
which a NOX allowance remaining in the new source
reserve that has not been distributed under paragraph (2)
shall be offered for sale.
(B) Open auctions.--An auction under subparagraph (A) shall
be open to any person.
(C) Conduct of auction.--
(i) Method of bidding.--A person wishing to bid for a
NOX allowance at an auction under subparagraph (A)
shall submit (by a date set by the Administrator) to the
Administrator (on a sealed bid schedule provided by the
Administrator) an offer to purchase a specified number of
NOX allowances at a specified price.
(ii) Sale based on bid price.--A NOX allowance
auctioned under subparagraph (A) shall be sold on the basis
of bid price, starting with the highest priced bid and
continuing until all NOX allowances for sale at
the auction have been sold.
(iii) No minimum price.--A minimum price shall not be set
for the purchase of a NOX allowance auctioned
under subparagraph (A).
(iv) Regulations.--The Administrator, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Treasury, shall promulgate a regulation
to carry out this paragraph.
(D) Use of NOX allowances.--A NOX
allowance purchased at an auction under subparagraph (A) may
be used for any purpose and at any time after the auction
that is permitted for use of a NOX allowance under
this Act.
(E) Proceeds of auction.--The proceeds from an auction
under this paragraph shall be distributed to the owner of an
affected source in proportion to the number of allowances
that the owner would have received but for this subsection.
(f) Nature of NOX Allowances.--
(1) Not a property right.--A NOX allowance shall
not be considered to be a property right.
(2) Limitation of NOX allowances.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator
may terminate or limit a NOX allowance.
(g) Prohibitions.--
(1) In general.--After January 1, 2000, it shall be
unlawful--
(A) for the owner or operator of an affected facility to
operate the affected facility in such a manner that the
affected facility emits nitrogen oxides in excess of the
amount permitted by the quantity of NOX allowances
held by the designated representative of the affected
facility; or
(B) for any person to hold, use, or transfer a
NOX allowance allocated under this Act, except as
provided under this Act.
(2) Other emission limitations.--Section 407 of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7651f) is repealed.
(3) Time of use.--A NOX allowance may not be
used before the calendar year for which the NOX
allowance is allocated.
(4) Permitting, monitoring, and enforcement.--Nothing in
this section affects--
(A) the permitting, monitoring, and enforcement obligations
of the Administrator under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401
et seq.); or
(B) the requirements and liabilities of an affected
facility under that Act.
(h) Savings Provisions.--Nothing in this section--
(1) affects the application of, or compliance with, the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) for an affected
facility, including the provisions related to applicable
national ambient air quality standards and State
implementation plans;
(2) requires a change in, affects, or limits any State law
regulating electric utility rates or charges, including
prudency review under State law;
(3) affects the application of the Federal Power Act (16
U.S.C. 791a et seq.) or the authority of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission under that Act; or
(4) interferes with or impairs any program for competitive
bidding for power supply in a State in which the Program is
established.

SEC. 5. INDUSTRIAL SOURCE MONITORING.

Section 412(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7651k(a)) is
amended in the first sentence by inserting ``, or of any
industrial facility with a capacity of 100 or more mmBtu's
per hour,'' after ``The owner and operator of any source
subject to this title''.

SEC. 6. EXCESS EMISSIONS PENALTY.

(a) In General.--
(1) Liability.--The owner or operator of an affected
facility that emits nitrogen oxides in any calendar year in
excess of the NOX allowances the owner or operator
holds for use for the facility for that year shall be liable
for the payment of an excess emissions penalty.
(2) Calculation.--The excess emissions penalty shall be
calculated by multiplying $6,000 by the quantity that is
equal to--
(A) the quantity of NOX allowances that would
authorize the nitrogen oxides emitted by the facility for the
calendar year; minus
(B) the quantity of NOX allowances that the
owner or operator holds for use for the facility for that
year.
(3) Overlapping penalties.--A penalty under this section
shall not diminish the liability of the owner or operator of
an affected facility for any fine, penalty, or assessment
against the owner or operator for the same violation under
any other provision of law.
(b) Excess Emissions Offset.--
(1) In general.--The owner or operator of an affected
facility that emits nitrogen oxide during a calendar year in
excess of the NOX allowances held for the facility
for the calendar year shall offset in the following calendar
year a quantity of NOX allowances equal to the
number of NOX allowances that would authorize the
excess nitrogen oxides emitted.
(2) Proposed plan.--Not later than 60 days after the end of
the year in which excess emissions occur, the owner or
operator of an affected facility shall submit to the
Administrator and the State in which the affected facility is
located a proposed plan to achieve the offset required under
paragraph (1).
(3) Condition of permit.--On approval of the proposed plan
by the Administrator, as submitted, or as modified or
conditioned by the Administrator, the plan shall be
considered a condition of the operating permit for the
affected facility without further review or revision of the
permit.
(c) Penalty Adjustment.--The Administrator shall annually
adjust the amount of the penalty specified in subsection (a)
to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for all urban
consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

SEC. 7. SULFUR DIOXIDE ALLOWANCE PROGRAM REVISIONS.

Section 402 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7651a) is
amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the
following:
``(3) Allowance.--The term `allowance' means an
authorization, allocated to an affected unit by the
Administrator under this title, to emit, during or after a
specified calendar year--
``(A) in the case of allowances allocated for calendar
years 1997 through 2004, 1 ton of sulfur dioxide; and
``(B) in the case of allowances allocated for calendar year
2005 and each calendar year thereafter, \1/2\ ton of sulfur
dioxide.''.

SEC. 8. REGIONAL ECOSYSTEMS.

(a) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2002, the
Administrator shall submit to Congress a report identifying
objectives for scientifically credible environmental
indicators, as determined by the Administrator, that are
sufficient to protect sensitive ecosystems of the Adirondack
Mountains, mid-Appalachian Mountains, Rocky Mountains, and
Southern Blue Ridge Mountains and water bodies of the Great
Lakes, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound, and the Chesapeake
Bay.
(2) Acid neutralizing capacity.--The report under paragraph
(1) shall--
(A) include acid neutralizing capacity as an indicator; and
(B) identify as an objective under paragraph (1) the
objective of increasing the proportion of water bodies in
sensitive receptor areas with an acid neutralizing capacity
greater than zero from the proportion identified in surveys
begun in 1984.

[[Page 921]]

(3) Updated report.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the
Administrator shall submit to Congress a report updating the
report under paragraph (1) and assessing the status and
trends of various environmental indicators for the regional
ecosystems referred to in paragraph (1).
(4) Reports under the national acid precipitation
assessment program.--The reports under this subsection shall
be subject to the requirements applicable to a report under
section 103(j)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7403(j)(3)(E)).
(b) Regulations.--
(1) Determination.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the
Administrator shall determine whether emissions reductions
under section 4 are sufficient to ensure achievement of the
objectives stated in subsection (a)(1).
(2) Promulgation.--If the Administrator determines under
paragraph (1) that emissions reductions under section 4 are
not sufficient to ensure achievement of the objectives
identified in subsection (a)(1), the Administrator shall
promulgate, not later than 2 years after making the finding,
such regulations, including modification of nitrogen oxide
and sulfur dioxide allowance allocations or any such measure,
as the Administrator determines are necessary to protect the
sensitive ecosystems described in subsection (a)(1).

SEC. 9. GENERAL COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER PROVISIONS.

Except as expressly provided in this Act, compliance with
this Act shall not exempt or exclude the owner or operator of
an affected facility from compliance with any other law.

SEC. 10. MERCURY EMISSION STUDY AND CONTROL.

(a) Study and Report.--The Administrator shall--
(1) study the practicality of monitoring mercury emissions
from all combustion units that have a capacity equal to or
greater than 250 mmBtu's per hour; and
(2) not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of
this Act, submit to Congress a report on the results of the
study.
(b) Regulations Concerning Monitoring.--Not later than 1
year after the date of submission of the report under
subsection (a), the Administrator shall promulgate a
regulation requiring the reporting of mercury emissions from
units that have a capacity equal to or greater than 250
mmBtu's per hour.
(c) Emission Controls.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the
commencement of monitoring activities under subsection (b),
the Administrator shall promulgate a regulation controlling
electric utility and industrial source emissions of mercury.
(2) Factors.--The regulation shall take into account
technological feasibility, cost, and the projected reduction
in levels of mercury emissions that will result from
implementation of this Act.

SEC. 11. DEPOSITION RESEARCH BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY.

(a) In General.--The Administrator shall establish a
competitive grant program to fund research related to the
effects of nitrogen deposition on sensitive watersheds and
coastal estuaries in the Eastern United States.
(b) Chemistry of Lakes and Streams.--
(1) Initial report.--Not later than September 30, 2001, the
Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Resources
of the House of Representatives a report on the health and
chemistry of lakes and streams of the Adirondacks that were
subjects of the report transmitted under section 404 of
Public Law 101-549 (commonly known as the ``Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990'') (104 Stat. 2632).
(2) Following report.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of the report under paragraph (1), the Administrator
shall submit a report updating the information contained in
the initial report.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated--
(1) to carry out subsection (a), $1,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2000 through 2005; and
(2) to carry out subsection (b), $1,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2007, and 2008.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 173. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to revise
amendments made by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

amendments to the immigration and nationality act

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that
will amend several parts of our existing immigration laws, specifically
those that fall under the umbrella of the Immigration and Nationality
Act. These changes are aimed at making our immigration laws not only
fairer but more efficient.
The first change will amend Section 240(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act. In 1996, the laws applying to criminal aliens were
made overly restrictive. For example, all persons guilty of aggravated
felonies--the number of crimes that fall into this category was greatly
expanded and made retroactive in 1996--are now ineligible for virtually
any form of leniency. This means that many people, who have led
exemplary lives for many years, now find themselves deportable for
offenses committed decades ago. They are also subject to mandatory
detention and have no chance for an immigration judge to evaluate their
individual circumstances. This is unfair.
My second change amends Section 240A.(1)(a) of the same act. At
present, the Attorney General has the authority to stop the deportation
of a lawful resident who has been in this country for seven years. The
1996 changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act now bar this relief
for anyone convicted of an aggravated felony. This provision has led to
many injustices because of the sheer number of offenses that are now
aggravated felonies. I propose that we deny relief only to those who
have been convicted of aggravated felonies that carry a penalty of five
years or more in prison.
In conjunction with this, I propose that we amend Section 240A(d)(1).
This provision says that the time for determining the above seven years
residency period stops when an aggravated crime is or was committed.
This has barred relief for people with ancient convictions but many
good years of citizenship since then. This should be changed so that
the countable residence period stops only when formal immigration
charges are filed because of the crime and not when the crime is or was
committed.
Another of my amendments made the transitional rules permanent
governing Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This
section now requires that all criminal aliens be detained from the time
of their release on criminal charges until their deportation hearing.
This requirement was so harsh and expensive that Congress provided a
two-year transition period, ending on October 1998, that allowed
immigration judges to use their discretion in evaluating whether or not
an individual was a risk of flight or a danger to the community. This
discretion should be continued because it is fair and because it will
empty our jails of those who will return for their hearings and who
pose no threat to our communities.
I also propose that we restore judicial review in deportation cases.
The 1996 reforms ostensibly banned criminal aliens from seeking a
judicial review of their cases. The courts have reached many different
outcomes over this ban and the situation, frankly, is a mess. I believe
that criminal aliens should have the right to have their convictions
reviewed by a United States circuit court of appeals.
Similiarly, I believe that aliens should have the right to legal
counsel when they are faced with removal. The law now provides that an
alien is entitled to counsel if he can afford to retain one. In
reality, this has created great expense and delay for the Federal
government because cases are often continued for lengthy periods while
aliens try to find pro bono counsel or counsel they can afford. My bill
creates a pilot program in selected Immigration and Nationalization
districts where free, expert counsel would be provided to aliens. A
study of the impact on overall Department of Justice costs would be
required to decide if this program should be extended nationwide.
My last amendments are concerned with who should be admitted to this
country. The most objectionable element of our current admission system
is the delay--estimated to be five years--for a vitally important
family reunion category, part A of the second family-based preference
(FS-2A). This category, for admission of spouses and minor children of
lawful, permanent residents, is now limited to 114,000 per year.
Nuclear families should live together. To obtain more spaces for the
FS-2A preference, the diversity lottery visas should be eliminated,
freeing 55,000 spaces annually.
Lastly, I believe that the EB-5 preference for investors should be
repealed.

[[Page 922]]

The rich should not be able to buy their way into this country. This
category was added in 1990 to encourage investment. Instead, this
provision has led to the creation of some highly questionable
investment schemes that have cost the Immigration and Naturalization
Service untold hours and resources in attempting to reign them in.
Moreover, the evidence of new jobs being created is very thin and not
worth the administrative costs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 173

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

(a) Cancellation of Removal.--
(1) In general.--Section 240A(a)(3) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(3)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(3) has not been convicted of any aggravated felony
punishable by imprisonment for a period of not less than five
years.''.
(2) Termination of continuous period.--Section 240A(d)(1)
of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1)) is amended by striking
``or when'' and all that follows through ``earliest''.
(b) Custody Rules.--
(1) In general.--Section 236(c)(2) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(2)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) Release.--The Attorney General may release an alien
described in paragraph (1) only if the alien is an alien
described in subparagraph (A)(ii) or (iii) and--
``(A) the alien was lawfully admitted to the United States
and satisfies the Attorney General that the alien will not
pose a danger to the safety of other persons or of property
and is likely to appear for any scheduled proceeding; or
``(B) the alien was not lawfully admitted to the United
States, cannot be removed because the designated country of
removal will not accept the alien, and satisfies the Attorney
General that the alien will not pose a danger to the safety
of other persons or of property and is likely to appear for
any scheduled proceeding.''.
(2) Repeal.--Section 303(b) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 is repealed.
(c) Judicial Review.--Section 242(a)(2)(C) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C)) is
amended by striking ``no court shall have jurisdiction to
review any'' and inserting ``a court of appeals for the
judicial circuit in which a final order of removal was issued
shall have jurisdiction to review the''.
(d) Right to Counsel.--Section 292 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1362) is amended--
(1) by striking ``In'' and inserting ``Except as provided
in paragraph (2), in''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) In any removal proceedings before an immigration
judge and in any appeal proceedings before the Attorney
General from any such removal proceedings (in three
designated districts), the person concerned shall have the
privilege of being represented by court-appointed counsel who
shall be paid by the United States and who are authorized to
practice in such proceedings, as he shall choose.''.
(e) Repeals.--The following provisions of the Immigration
and Nationality Act are repealed:
(1) Section 203(b)(5) (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)).
(2) Section 203(c) (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)).
(3) Section 201(a)(3) and 201(e) (8 U.S.C. 1151(a)(3),
1151(e)).
(4) Section 204(a)(1)(F) and (G) (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(F)
and (G)).
(5) Section 216A (8 U.S.C. 1186b).
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Dodd):
S. 174. A bill to provide funding for States to correct Y2K problems
in computers that are used to administer State and local government
programs; to the Committee on Finance.

y2k state and local gap (government assistance programs) act of 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Y2K
State and Local Government Assistance Programs (GAP) Act of 1999.'' I
am pleased to have Senators Robert F. Bennett (R-UT) and Christopher J.
Dodd (D-CT), the Chairman and Vice Chairman, respectively, of the
Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, as original
cosponsors of this legislation. This bill provides a matching grant for
states to work on the millennium computer problem. While the Federal
government and large corporations are expected to have their computers
intact on January 1, 2000, state governments lag behind in fixing the
problem. Failure of state computers could have a devastating effect on
those individuals who rely on essential state-administered poverty
programs, such as Medicaid, food stamps, and child welfare and support.
These individuals cannot go a day, a week, or a month without these
programs working properly. I am hopeful that the bill Senators Bennett,
Dodd, and I are introducing today will help states fix their computers,
particularly those computers used to administer Federal welfare
programs.
It has been almost three years since I asked the Congressional
Research Service (CRS) to study and produce a report on the
implications of the Y2K problem. CRS issued the report to me with the
following comments: ``The Year 2000 problem is indeed serious, and
fixing it will be costly and time-consuming. The problem deserves the
careful and coordinated attention of the Federal government, as well as
the private sector, in order to avert major disruptions on January 1,
2000.'' I wrote the President on July 31, 1996 to relay the findings of
CRS and make him aware of this grave problem. In the letter, I warned
the president of the ``extreme negative economic consequences of the
Y2K Time Bomb,'' and suggested that ``a presidential aide be appointed
to take responsibility for assuring that all Federal agencies,
including the military, be Y2K compliant by January 1, 1999 [leaving a
year for `testing'] and that all commercial and industrial firms doing
business with the Federal government must also be compliant by that
date.''
Since that time, the government has taken some of the necessary steps
to combat the millennium bug. The President created the Year 2000
Conversion Council and appointed John Koskinen to head it. The Senate,
under the leadership of Chairman Bennett and Vice Chairman Dodd,
established the Special Committee on the Y2K problem. And
Representative Stephen Horn (R-CA) continues to due an excellent job in
keeping the government focused on the issue. Thanks in part to the work
of these individuals, we have made tremendous progress on the
millennium bug. Y2K experts have become optimistic enough to dismiss
doomsday predictions of widespread power outages, telephone failures,
and grounded jetliners in the U.S. Businesses and Federal agencies that
were lagging in their repair work last year have redoubled their
efforts in recent months; telephone and electric networks, which are
crucial to the operation of almost all large computer systems, are in
better-than-expected shape; and technicians have found remarkably few
date-related problems with the electronic circuitry in a host of other
``day-to-day'' devices, from subway cars to elevators.
Mr. Koskinen predicts that the bug's impact will be similar to a
powerful winter storm--minor inconveniences for many people and severe,
but short-term, disruptions for some communities. I agree with Mr.
Koskinen and other Y2K experts. I do not expect the four horsemen,
armed with flood and catastrophe, to be riding in on January 1, 2000.
But experts agree that state governments are not making sufficient
progress in fixing the problem. It is for this reason that Senators
Bennett, Dodd, and I are introducing this bill today.
The ``Y2K State and Local GAP Act of 1999'' provides funding for
states to address the Y2K problem. The bill stipulates that certain
Federal poverty programs--Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF), Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), food stamps, child
support enforcement, child care, and child welfare programs--be listed
as priority programs. The people dependent on these programs will be
the most adversely affected by the problem if state computers crash. To
be eligible for Federal support money, states must submit a plan
describing their Y2K development and implementation program. A state
that is awarded a grant under this legislation is required to expend $1
for every $2 provided by the Federal government. The matching
requirement will give states and local governments incentive to work on
their computers. And the numbers indicate that states

[[Page 923]]

need a great amount of incentive and help on this issue.
According to a National Association of State Information Resource
Executives survey, some states have not yet completed work on any of
their critical systems, and those systems responsible for administering
poverty programs are a real concern. A November 1998 General Accounting
Office (GAO) report found that most of the systems used to administer
poverty programs are not ready for the new millennium--84 percent of
Medicaid systems, 76 percent of food stamps, and 75 percent of TANF
systems were not compliant. Since these programs are administered at
the state and local level, it is these computers which ensure that
benefit payments are on time and accurate. Given the lack of means of
those assisted by the programs, the possible disruption of benefit
payments should be a cause for concern--a billion dollars in benefits
payments might not be delivered because of the millennial malady.
Historically the fin de siecle has caused quite a stir. Prophets,
prelates, monks, mathematicians, and soothsayers warn Anno Domini 2000
will draw the world to its catastrophic conclusion. I am confident that
the Y2K problem will not play a part in this. But we must continue to
work on this problem with purpose and dedication. Disraeli wrote: ``Man
is not the creature of circumstances. Circumstances are the creatures
of men.'' We created the Y2K problem and we must fix it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Y2K State and Local
Government Assistance Programs 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. 174

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 ``Y2K State and Local GAP
(Government Assistance Programs) Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Welfare programs.--The welfare programs are as follows:
(A) TANF.--The State program funded under part A of title
IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
(B) Medicaid.--The program of medical assistance under
title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et
seq.).
(C) Food stamps.--The food stamp program, as defined in
section 3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2012(h)).
(D) WIC.--The program of assistance under the special
supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and
children (WIC) under section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of
1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786).
(E) Child support enforcement.--The child support and
paternity establishment program established under part D of
title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.).
(F) Child welfare.--A child welfare program or a program
designed to promote safe and stable families established
under subpart 1 or 2 of part B of title IV of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 620 et seq.).
(G) Child care.--The Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) (including funding
provided under section 418 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 618)).
(2) Y2K.--The term ``Y2K compliant'' means, with respect to
information technology, that the information technology
accurately processes (including calculating, comparing, and
sequencing) date and time data from, into, and between the
20th and 21st centuries and the years 1999 and 2000, and leap
year calculations, to the extent that other information
technology properly exchanges date and time data with it.

SEC. 3. GRANTS TO STATES TO MAKE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PROGRAMS Y2K COMPLIANT.

(a) Authority To Award Grants.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of
Commerce shall award grants in accordance with this section
to States for purposes of making grants to assist the States
and local governments in making programs administered by the
States and local governments Y2K compliant. The Secretary of
Commerce shall give priority to grant requests that relate to
making Federal welfare programs Y2K compliant.
(2) Limitations.--
(A) Number of grants.--No more than 75 grants may be
awarded under this section.
(B) Per state limitation.--Not more than 2 grants
authorized under this section may be awarded per State.
(C) Application deadline.--45 days after enactment.
(b) Application.--
(1) In general.--A State, through the State Governor's
Office, may submit an application for a grant authorized
under this section at such time within the constraints of
paragraph Sec. 3(a)(2)(C) and in such manner as the Secretary
of Commerce may determine.
(2) Information required.--An application for a grant
authorized under this section shall contain the following:
(A) A description of a proposed plan for the development
and implementation of a Y2K compliance program for the
State's programs or for a local government program, including
a proposed budget for the plan and a request for a specific
funding amount.
(B) A description or identification of a proposed funding
source for completion of the plan (if applicable) and
maintenance of the system after the conclusion of the period
for which the grant is to be awarded.
(c) Conditions for Approval of Applications.--
(1) Matching requirement.--
(A) In general.--A State awarded a grant under this section
shall expend $1 for every $2 awarded under the grant to carry
out the development and implementation of a Y2K compliance
program for the State's programs under the proposed plan.
(B) Waiver for hardship.--The Secretary of Commerce may
waive or modify the matching requirement described in
subparagraph (A) in the case of any State that the Secretary
of Commerce determines would suffer undue hardship as a
result of being subject to the requirement.
(C) Non-federal expenditures.--
(i) Cash or in kind.--State expenditures required under
subparagraph (A) may be in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated,
including equipment, or services.
(ii) No credit for pre-award expenditures.--Only State
expenditures made after a grant has been awarded under this
section may be counted for purposes of determining whether
the State has satisfied the matching expenditure requirement
under subparagraph (A).
(2) Considerations.--In evaluating an application for a
grant under this section the Secretary of Commerce shall
consider the extent to which the proposed system is feasible
and likely to achieve the purposes described in subsection
(a)(1).
(d) Length of Awards.--No grant may be awarded under this
section for a period of more than 2 years.
(e) Availability of Funds.--Funds provided to a State under
a grant awarded under this section shall remain available
until expended without fiscal year limitation.
(f) Reports.--
(1) Annual report from grantees.--Each State that is
awarded a grant under this section shall submit an annual
report to the Secretary of Commerce that contains a
description of the ongoing results of the independent
evaluation of the plan for, and implementation of, the
compliance program funded under the grant.
(2) Final report.--Not later than 90 days after the
termination of all grants awarded under this section, the
Secretary of Commerce shall submit to Congress a final report
evaluating the programs funded under such grants.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $40,000,000 for
fiscal years 1999 to 2001 funded from the Y2K Emergency
Supplemental Funds appropriated in the FY99 Omnibus Act,
Public Law 105-277.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 175. A bill to repeal the habeas corpus requirement that a Federal
court defer to State court judgments and uphold a conviction regardless
of whether the Federal court believes that the State court erroneously
interpreted constitutional law, except in cases where the Federal court
believes that the State court acted in an unreasonable manner; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

habeas corpus legislation

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce this bill to repeal an
unprecedented provision--unprecedented until the 104th Congress--to
tamper with the constitutional protection of habeas corpus.
The provision reads:

(d) An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of State court
shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was
adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless
the adjudication of the claim--
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United
States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

In 1996 we enacted a statute which holds that constitutional
protections do not exist unless they have been unreasonably violated,
an idea that would have confounded the framers. Thus, we

[[Page 924]]

introduced a virus that will surely spread throughout our system of
laws.
Article I, section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution stipulates, ``The
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless
when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require
it.''
We are mightily and properly concerned about the public safety, which
is why we enacted the counter-terrorism bill. But we have not been
invaded, Mr. President, and the only rebellion at hand appears to be
against the Constitution itself. We are dealing here, sir, with a
fundamental provision of law, one of those essential civil liberties
which precede and are the basis of political liberties.
The writ of habeas corpus is often referred to as the ``Great Writ of
Liberty.'' William Blackstone (1723-80) called it ``the most celebrated
writ in English law, and the great and efficacious writ in all manner
of illegal imprisonment.''
I repeat what I have said previously here on the Senate floor: If I
had to choose between living in a country with habeas corpus but
without free elections, or a country with free elections but without
habeas corpus, I would choose habeas corpus every time. To say again,
this is one of the fundamental civil liberties on which every
democratic society of the world has built political liberties that have
come subsequently.
I make the point that the abuse of habeas corpus--appeals of capital
sentences--is hugely overstated. A 1995 study by the Department of
Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics determined that habeas corpus
appeals by death row inmates constitute 1 percent of all Federal habeas
filings. Total habeas filings make up 4 percent of the caseload of
Federal district courts. And most Federal habeas petitions are disposed
of in less than 1 year. The serious delays occur in State courts, which
take an average of 5 years to dispose of habeas petitions. If there is
delay, the delay is with the State courts.
It is troubling that Congress has undertaken to tamper with the Great
Writ in a bill designed to respond to the tragic circumstances of the
Oklahoma City bombing 1995. Habeas corpus has little to do with
terrorism. The Oklahoma City bombing was a Federal crime and has been
tried in Federal courts.
Nothing in our present circumstance requires the suspension of habeas
corpus, which was the practical effect of the provision in that bill.
To require a Federal court to defer to a State court's judgment unless
the State court's decision is ``unreasonably wrong'' effectively
precludes Federal review. I find this disorienting.
Anthony Lewis has written of the habeas provision in that bill: ``It
is a new and remarkable concept in law: that mere wrongness in a
constitutional decision is not to be noticed.'' We have agreed to this;
to what will we be agreeing next? I restate Mr. Lewis' observation, a
person of great experience, long a student of the courts, ``It is a new
and remarkable concept in law: that mere wrongness in a constitutional
decision is not to be noticed.'' Backward reels the mind.
On December 8, 1995, four former U.S. Attorneys General, two
Republicans and two Democrats, all persons with whom I have the honor
to be acquainted, Benjamin R. Civiletti, Jr., Edward H. Levi, Nicholas
Katzenbach, and Elliot Richardson--I served in administrations with Mr.
Levi, Mr. Katzenbach, Mr. Richardson; I have the deepest regard for
them--wrote President Clinton. I ask unanimous consent that the full
text be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

December 8, 1995.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: The habeas corpus provisions in the
Senate terrorism bill, which the House will soon take up, are
unconstitutional. Though intended in large part to expedite
the death penalty review process, the litigation and
constitutional rulings will in fact delay and frustrate the
imposition of the death penalty. We strongly urge you to
communicate to the Congress your resolve and your duty under
the constitution, to prevent the enactment of such
unconstitutional legislation and the consequent disruption of
so critical of part of our criminal punishment system.
The constitutional infirmities reside in three provisions
of the legislation: one requiring federal courts to defer to
erroneous state court rulings on federal constitutional
matters, one imposing time limits which could operate to
completely bar any federal habeas corpus review at all, and
one to prevent the federal courts from hearing the evidence
necessary to decide a federal constitutional question. They
violate the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause, the judicial
powers of Article III, and due process. None of these
provisions appeared in the bill that you and Senator Biden
worked out in the last Congress together with representatives
of prosecutors' organizations.
The deference requirement would bar any federal court from
granting habeas corpus relief where a state court has
misapplied the United States Constitution, unless the
constitutional error rose to a level of ``unreasonableness.''
The time-limits provisions set a single period of the filing
of both state and federal post-conviction petitions (six
months in a capital case and one year in other cases),
commencing with the date a state conviction becomes final on
direct review. Under these provisions, the entire period
could be consumed in the state process, through no fault of
the prisoner or counsel, thus creating an absolute bar to the
filing of federal habeas corpus petition. Indeed, the period
could be consumed before counsel had even been appointed in
the state process, so that the inmate would have no notice of
the time limit or the fatal consequences of consuming all of
it before filing a state petition.
Both of these provisions, by flatly barring federal habeas
corpus review under certain circumstances, violate the
Constitution's Suspension Clause, which provides: ``The
privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in the case of rebellion or invasion
the public safety may require it'' (Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 1).
Any doubt as to whether this guarantee applies to persons
held in state as well as federal custody was removed by the
passage of the Fourteenth Amendment and by the amendment's
framers' frequent mention of habeas corpus as one of the
privileges and immunities so protected.
The preclusion of access to habeas corpus also violates Due
Process. A measure is subject to proscription under the due
process clause if it ``offends some principle of justice so
rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to
be ranked as fundamental,'' as viewed by ``historical
practice.'' Medina v. California, 112 S. Ct. 2572, 2577
(1992). Independent federal court review of the
constitutionality of state criminal judgments has existed
since the founding of the Nation, first by writ of error, and
since 1867 by writ of habeas corpus. Nothing else is more
deeply rooted in America's legal traditions and conscience.
There is no case in which ``a state court's incorrect legal
determination has ever been allowed to stand because it was
reasonable,'' Justice O'Connor found in Wright v. West, 112
S. Ct. 2482, 2497; ``We have always held that federal courts,
even on habeas, have an independent obligation to say what
the law is.'' Indeed, Alexander Hamilton argued, in The
Federalist No. 84, that the existence of just two
protections--habeas corpus and the prohibition against ex
post facto laws--obviated the need to add a Bill of Rights to
the Constitution.
The deference requirement may also violate the powers
granted to the judiciary under Article III. By stripping the
federal courts of authority to exercise independent judgment
and forcing them to defer to previous judgments made by state
courts, the provision runs afoul of the oldest constitutional
mission of the federal courts: ``the duty . . . to say what
the law is.'' Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177
(1803). Although Congress is free to alter the federal
courts' jurisdiction, it cannot order them how to interpret
the Constitution, or dictate any outcome in the merits.
United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871). In
1996, the Supreme Court reiterated that Congress has no power
to assign ``rubber stamp work'' to an Article III court,
``Congress may be free to establish a . . . scheme that
operates without court participation,'' the Court said, ``but
that is a matter quite different from instructing a court
automatically to enter a judgment pursuant to a decision the
court has not authority to evaluate.'' Gutierrez de Martinez
v. Lamagno, 115 S. Ct 2227, 2234.
Finally, in prohibiting evidentiary hearings where the
constitutional issue raised does not go to guilt or
innocence, the legislation again violates Due Process. A
violation of constitutional rights cannot be judged in a
vacuum. The determination of the facts assumes ``and
importance fully as great as the validity of the substantive
rule of law to be applied.'' Wingo v. Wedding, 418 U.S. 461,
474 (1974).
Prior to 1996, the last time habeas corpus legislation was
debated at length in constitutional terms was in 1968. A bill
substantially eliminating federal habeas corpus review for
state prisoners was defeated because, as Republican Senator
Hugh Scott put it at the end of debate, ``if Congress tampers

[[Page 925]]

with the great writ, its action would have about as much
chance of being held constitutional as the celebrated
celluloid dog chasing the asbestos cat through hell.''
In more recent years, the habeas reform debate has been
viewed as a mere adjunct of the debate over the death
penalty. But when the Senate took up the terrorism bill this
year, Senator Moynihan sought to reconnect with the large
framework of constitutional liberties: ``If I had to live in
a country which had habeas corpus but not free elections,''
he said, ``I would take habeas corpus every time,'' Senator
Chafee noted that his uncle, a Harvard law scholar, has
called habeas corpus ``the most important human rights
provision in the Constitution,'' With the debate back on
constitutional grounds, Senator Biden's amendment to delete
the deference requirement nearly passed, with 46 votes.
We respectfully ask that you insist, first and foremost, on
the preservation of independent federal review, i.e., on the
rejection of any requirement that federal courts defer to
state court judgments on federal constitutional questions. We
also urge that separate time limits be set for filing federal
and state habeas corpus petitions--a modest change which need
not interfere with the setting of strict time limits--and
that they begin to run only upon the appointment of competent
counsel. And we urge that evidentiary hearings be permitted
wherever the factual record is deficient on an important
constitutional issue. Congress can either fix the
constitutional flaws now, or wait through several years of
litigation and confusion before being sent back to the
drawing board. Ultimately, it is the public's interest in the
prompt and fair disposition of criminal cases which will
suffer. The passage of an unconstitutional bill helps no one.
We respectfully urge you, as both President and a former
professor of constitutional law, to call upon Congress to
remedy these flaws before sending the terrorism bill to your
desk. We request an opportunity to meet with you personally
to discuss this matter so vital to the future of the Republic
and the liberties we all hold dear.
Sincerely,
Benjamin R. Civiletti, Jr.,
Baltimore, MD.
Edward H. Levi,
Chicago, IL.
Nicholas deB. Katzenback,
Princeton, NJ.
Elliot L. Richardson,
Washington, DC.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Let me read excerpts from the letter:

The habeas corpus provisions in the Senate bill * * * are
unconstitutional. Though intended in large part to expedite
the death penalty review process, the litigation and
constitutional rulings will in fact delay and frustrate the
imposition of the death penalty * * *
The constitutional infirmities * * * violate the Habeas
Corpus Suspension Clause, the judicial powers of Article III,
and due process * * *.
* * * A measure is subject to proscription under the due
process clause if it ``offends some principle of justice so
rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to
be ranked as fundamental,'' as viewed by ``historical
practice.''

That language is Medina versus California, a 1992 decision. To
continue,

Independent federal court review of the constitutionality
of state criminal judgments has existed since the founding of
the Nation, first by writ of error, and since 1867 by writ of
habeas corpus.
Nothing else is more deeply rooted in America's legal
traditions and conscience. There is no clause in which ``a
state court's incorrect legal determination has ever been
allowed to stand because it was reasonable.''

That is Justice O'Connor, in Wright versus West. She goes on, as the
attorneys general quote. ``We have always held that federal courts,
even on habeas, have an independent obligation to say what the law
is.''
If I may interpolate, she is repeating the famous injunction of
Justice Marshall in Marbury versus Madison. The attorneys general go on
to say,

Indeed Alexander Hamilton argued, in The Federalist No. 84,
that the existence of just two protections--habeas corpus and
the prohibition against ex post facto laws--obviated the need
to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

The letter from the Attorneys General continues, but that is the gist
of it. I might point out that there was, originally, an objection to
ratification of the Constitution, with those objecting arguing that
there had to be a Bill of Rights added. Madison wisely added one during
the first session of the first Congress. But he and Hamilton and Jay,
as authors of The ``Federalist Papers,'' argued that with habeas corpus
and the prohibition against ex post facto laws in the Constitution,
there would be no need even for a Bill of Rights. We are glad that, in
the end, we do have one. But their case was surely strong, and it was
so felt by the framers.
To cite Justice O'Connor again: ``A state court's incorrect legal
determination has never been allowed to stand because it was
reasonable.''
Justice O'Connor went on: ``We have always held that Federal courts,
even on habeas, have an independent obligation to say what the law
is.''
Mr. President, we can fix this now. Or, as the Attorneys General
state, we can ``wait through several years of litigation and confusion
before being sent back to the drawing board.'' I fear that we will not
fix it now.
We Americans think of ourselves as a new nation. We are not. Of the
countries that existed in 1914, there are only eight which have not had
their form of government changed by violence since then. Only the
United Kingdom goes back to 1787 when the delegates who drafted our
Constitution established this Nation, which continues to exist. In
those other nations, sir, a compelling struggle took place, from the
middle of the 18th century until the middle of the 19th century, and
beyond into the 20th, and even to the end of the 20th in some
countries, to establish those basic civil liberties which are the
foundation of political liberties and, or those, none is so precious as
habeas corpus, the ``Great Writ.''
Here we are trivializing this treasure, putting in jeopardy a
tradition of protection of individual rights by Federal courts that
goes back to our earliest foundation. And the virus will spread. Why
are we in such a rush to amend our Constitution? Why do we tamper with
provisions as profound to our traditions and liberty as habeas corpus?
The Federal courts do not complain. It may be that because we have
enacted this, there will be some prisoners who are executed sooner than
they otherwise would have been. You may take satisfaction in that or
not, as you choose, but we have begun to weaken a tenet of justice at
the very base of our liberties. The virus will spread.
This is new. It is profoundly disturbing. It is terribly dangerous.
If I may have the presumption to join in the judgment of four Attorneys
General, Mr. Civiletti, Mr. Levi, Mr. Katzenbach, and Mr. Richardson--
and I repeat that I have served in administrations with three of them--
this matter is unconstitutional and should be repealed from law.
Seventeen years ago, June 6, 1982, to be precise, I gave the
commencement address at St. John University Law School in Brooklyn. I
spoke of the proliferation of court-curbing bills at that time. I
remarked:

* * * some people--indeed, a great many people--have
decided that they do not agree with the Supreme Court and
that they are not satisfied to Debate, Legislate, Litigate.
They have embarked upon an altogether new and I believe
quite dangerous course of action. A new triumvirate hierarchy
has emerged. Convene (meaning the calling of a constitutional
convention), Overrule (the passage of legislation designed to
overrule a particular Court ruling, when the Court's ruling
was based on an interpretation of the Constitution), and
Restrict (to restrict the jurisdiction of certain courts to
decide particular kinds of cases).
Perhaps the most pernicious of these is the attempt to
restrict courts' jurisdictions, for it is * * * profoundly at
odds with our Nation's customs and political philosophy.
It is a commonplace that our democracy is characterized by
majority rule and minority rights. Our Constitution vests
majority rule in the Congress and the President while the
courts protect the rights of the minority.
While the legislature makes the laws, and the executive
enforces them, it is the courts that tell us what the laws
say and whether they conform to the Constitution.
This notion of judicial review has been part of our
heritage for nearly two hundred years. There is not a more
famous case in American jurisprudence than Marbury v. Madison
and few more famous dicta than Chief Justice Marshall's that
``It is emphatically the province and the duty of the
judicial department to say what the law is.''
But in order for the court to interpret the law, it must
decide cases. If it cannot hear certain cases, then it cannot
protect certain rights.

We need to deal resolutely with terrorism. And we have. But under the
guise of combating terrorism, we have diminished the fundamental civil
liberties that Americans have enjoyed for two centuries; therefore the
terrorists will have won.

[[Page 926]]

My bill will repeal this dreadful, unconstitutional provision now in
public law. I ask unanimous consent that the article entitled ``First
in Damage to Constitutional Liberties,'' by Nat Hentoff from the
Washington Post of November 16, 1996; and the article entitled
``Clinton's Sorriest Record'' from the New York Times of October 14,
1996; be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, November 16, 1996]

First in Damage to Constitutional Liberties

(By Nat Hentoff)

There have been American presidents to whom the
Constitution has been a nuisance to be overruled by any means
necessary. In 1798, only seven years after the Bill of Rights
was ratified, John Adams triumphantly led Congress in the
passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which imprisoned a
number of journalists and others for bringing the president
or Congress into ``contempt or disrepute.'' So much for the
First Amendment.
During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln actually suspended
the writ of habeas corpus. Alleged constitutional guarantees
of peaceful dissent were swept away during the First World
War--with the approval of Woodrow Wilson. For example, there
were more than 1,900 prosecutions for anti-war books,
newspaper articles, pamphlets and speeches. And Richard Nixon
seemed to regard the Bill of Rights as primarily a devilish
source of aid to his enemy.
No American president, however, has done so much damage to
constitutional liberties as Bill Clinton--often with the
consent of Republicans in Congress. But it has been Clinton
who had the power and the will to seriously weaken our
binding document in ways that were almost entirely ignored by
the electorate and the press during the campaign.
Unlike Lincoln, for example, Clinton did a lot more than
temporarily suspend habeas corpus. One of his bills that has
been enacted into law guts the rights that Thomas Jefferson
insisted be included in the Constitution. A state prisoner on
death row now has only a year to petition a federal court to
review the constitutionality of his trial or sentence. In
many previous cases of prisoners eventually freed after years
of waiting to be executed, proof of their innocence has been
discovered long after the present one year limit.
Moreover, the Clinton administration is--as the ACLU's
Laura Murphy recently told the National Law Journal--``the
most wire-tap-friendly administration in history.''
And Clinton ordered the Justice Department to appeal a
unanimous 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals decision declaring
unconstitutional the Communications Decency Act censoring the
Internet, which he signed into law.
There is a chilling insouciance in Clinton's elbowing the
Constitution out of the way. He blithely, for instance, has
stripped the courts of their power to hear certain kinds of
cases. As Anthony Lewis points out in the New York Times,
Clinton has denied many people their day in court.
For one example, says Lewis. ``The new immigration law * *
* takes away the rights of thousands of aliens who may be
entitled to legalize their situation under a 1986 statute
giving amnesty to illegal aliens.'' Cases involving as many
as 300,000 people who may still qualify for amnesty have been
waiting to be decided. All have now been thrown out of court
by the new immigration law.
There have been other Clinton revisions of the
Constitution, but in sum--as David Boaz of the Cato Institute
has accurately put it--Clinton has shown ``a breathtaking
view of the power of the Federal government, a view directly
opposite the meaning of `civil libertarian.' ''
During the campaign there was no mention at all of this
breathtaking exercise of federal power over constitutional
liberties. None by former senator Bob Dole who has largely
been in agreement with this big government approach to
constitutional ``guarantees.'' Nor did the press ask the
candidates about the Constitution.
Laura Murphy concludes that ``both Clinton and Dole are
indicative of how far the American people have slipped away
from the notions embodied in the Bill of Rights.'' She
omitted the role of the press, which seems focused primarily
on that part of the First Amendment that protects the press.
Particularly revealing were the endorsements of Clinton by
the New York Times, The Washington Post and the New Republic,
among others. In none of them was the president's civil
liberties record probed. (The Post did mention the FBI files
at the White House.) Other ethical problems were cited, but
nothing was mentioned about habeas corpus, court-stripping,
lowering the content of the Internet to material suitable for
children and the Clinton administration's decided lack of
concern for privacy protections of the individual against
increasingly advanced government technology.
A revealing footnote to the electorate's ignorance of this
subverting of the Constitution is a statement by N. Don
Wycliff, editorial page editor of the Chicago Tribune. He
tells Newsweek that ``people are not engaged in the
[political] process because there are no compelling issues
driving them to participate. It would be different if we
didn't have peace and prosperity.''
What more could we possibly want?
____

[From the New York Times, Oct. 14, 1996]

Abroad at Home; Clinton's Sorriest Record

(By Anthony Lewis)

Bill Clinton has not been called to account in this
campaign for the worst aspect of his Presidency. That is his
appalling record on constitutional rights.
The Clinton years have seen, among other things, a series
of measures stripping the courts of their power to protect
individuals from official abuse--the power that has been the
key to American freedom. There has been nothing like it since
the Radical Republicans, after the Civil War, acted to keep
the courts from holding the occupation of the South to
constitutional standards.
The Republican Congress of the last two years initiated
some of the attacks on the courts. But President Clinton did
not resist them as other Presidents have. And he proposed
some of the measures trampling on constitutional protections.
Much of the worst has happened this year. President Clinton
sponsored a counterterrorism bill that became law with a
number of repressive features in it. One had nothing to do
with terrorism: a provision gutting the power of Federal
courts to examine state criminal convictions, on writs of
habeas corpus, to make sure there was no violation of
constitutional rights.
The Senate might well have moderated the habeas corpus
provision if the President had put up a fight. But he broke a
promise and gave way.
The counterterrorism law also allows the Government to
deport a legally admitted alien, on the ground that he is
suspected of a connection to terrorism, without letting him
see or challenge the evidence. And it goes back to the
McCarthy period by letting the Government designate
organizations as ``terrorist''--a designation that could have
included Nelson Mandela's African National Congress before
apartheid gave way to democracy in South Africa.
The immigration bill just passed by Congress has many
sections prohibiting review by the courts of decisions by the
Immigration and Naturalization Service or the Attorney
General. Some of those provisions have drastic retroactive
consequences.
For example, Congress in 1986 passed an amnesty bill that
allowed many undocumented aliens to legalize their presence
in this country. They had to file by a certain date, but a
large number said they failed to do so because improper
I.N.S. regulations discouraged them.
The Supreme Court held that those who could show they were
entitled to amnesty but were put off by the I.N.S. rules
could file late. Lawsuits involving thousands of people are
pending. But the new immigration law throws all those cases--
and individuals--out of court.
Another case, in the courts for years, stems from an
attempt to deport a group of Palestinians. Their lawyer sued
to block the deportation action; a Federal district judge,
Stephen V. Wilson, a Reagan appointee, found that it was an
unlawful selective proceeding against people for exercising
their constitutional right of free speech. The new
immigration law says the courts may not hear such cases.
The immigration law protects the I.N.S. from judicial
scrutiny in a broader way. Over the years the courts have
barred the service from deliberately discriminatory policies,
for example the practice of disallowing virtually all asylum
claims by people fleeing persecution in certain countries.
The law bars all lawsuits of that kind.
Those are just a few examples of recent incursions on due
process of law and other constitutional guarantees. A
compelling piece by John Heilemann in this month's issue of
Wired, the magazine on the social consequences of the
computer revolution, concludes that Mr. Clinton's record on
individual rights is ``breathtaking in its awfulness.'' He
may be, Mr. Heilemann says, ``the worst civil liberties
President since Richard Nixon.'' And even President Nixon did
not leave a legacy of court-stripping statutes.
It is by no means clear that Bob Dole would do better. He
supported some of the worst legislation in the Senate, as the
Gingrich Republicans did in the House
Why? The Soviet threat, which used to be the excuse for
shoving the Constitution aside, is gone. Even in the worst
days of the Red Scare we did not strip the courts of their
protective power. Why are we legislating in panic now? Why,
especially, is a lawyer President indifferent to
constitutional rights and their protection by the courts?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

[[Page 927]]

S. 175

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT A FEDERAL COURT
DEFER TO A STATE COURT UNLESS THE STATE COURT
ACTED IN AN UNREASONABLE MANNER IN HABEAS
CORPUS CASES.

(a) Repeal.--Subsection (d) of section 2254 of title 28,
United States Code, is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2264(b) of title 28,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``, (d),''.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 176. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
study of alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the history of
the Harlem Reniassance, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.

harlem renaissance cultural zone act

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
establish a cultural zone commemorating the Harlem Renaissance, one of
this country's greatest cultural, literary, and musical movements.
Pioneered by W.E.B. Dubois, Alain Locke, and James Weldon Johnson, the
Harlem Renaissance was at the forefront of this country's intellectual,
literary, and artistic development in the 1920s. Langston Hughes, Zora
Neale Hurston, Claude McKay, Countee Cullen, Jean Toomer, and Wallace
Thurman were among this movement's most gifted writers. The Harlem
Renaissance also included the music of Duke Ellington, the theatrical
productions of Eubie Blake and Noble Sissle, and the rich nightlife of
the Cotton Club, the Savoy, and Connie's Inn.
This bill empowers the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
National Park Service, to conduct a study to determine how best to
memorialize this great movement and to preserve and maintain its rich
history. Working and cooperating with the appropriate state and local
authorities, I am confident that we can properly recognize and preserve
one of this country's foremost cultural, literary, and historical
periods.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 176

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 ``Harlem Renaissance Cultural
Zone Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the Harlem Renaissance was the dominant intellectual,
literary, and artistic expression of the New Negro Movement
of the 1920's;
(2) W.E.B. DuBois, James Weldon Johnson, and Alain Locke
planted the seeds of the New Negro Movement, while Langston
Hughes, Zora Neal Hurston, Claude McKay, Countee Cullen, Jean
Toomer, and Wallace Thurman were among the Movement's most
gifted writers; and
(3) the Harlem Renaissance also included the music of Duke
Ellington, the theatrical productions of Eubie Blake, and the
nightlife of the Cotton Club and the Alhamba theaters.

SEC. 3. STUDY OF ALTERNATIVES FOR CULTURAL ZONE TO
COMMEMORATE AND INTERPRET HISTORY OF THE HARLEM
RENAISSANCE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Director of the National Park Service, shall
conduct a study of alternatives for commemorating and
interpreting the history of the Harlem Renaissance.
(b) Matters To Be Considered.--The study under subsection
(a) shall include--
(1) consideration of the establishment of a new unit of the
National Park System;
(2) consideration of the establishment of various
appropriate designations for sites relating to the history of
the Harlem Renaissance; and
(3) recommendations for cooperative arrangements with State
and local governments, historical organizations, and other
entities.
(c) Study Process.--The Secretary shall--
(1) conduct the study with public involvement and in
consultation with State and local officials, scholarly and
other interested organizations, and individuals;
(2) complete the study as expeditiously as practicable
after the date on which funds are made available; and
(3) on completion of the study, submit to the Committee on
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the
findings and recommendations of the study.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 177. A bill for the relief of Donald C. Pence; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.

private relief legislation

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief
bill on behalf of Donald C. Pence of Sanford, North Carolina, for
compensation for the failure of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to
pay dependency and indemnity compensation to Kathryn E. Box, the now
deceased mother of Donald C. Pence. It is rare that a federal agency
admits a mistake. In this case, the Department of Veterans' Affairs has
admitted that a mistake was made and explored ways to permit payment
under the law, including equitable relief, but has found no provision
to release the remaining benefits that were unpaid to Mrs. Box at the
time of her death. My bill would correct this injustice and I urge my
colleagues to support this measure.
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. 177

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

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF DONALD C. PENCE.

(a) Relief.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out
of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to
Donald C. Pence, of Sanford, North Carolina, the sum of
$31,128 in compensation for the failure of the Department of
Veterans' Affairs to pay dependency and indemnity
compensation to Kathryn E. Box, the now-deceased mother of
Donald C. Pence, for the period beginning on July 1, 1990,
and ending on March 31, 1993.
(b) Limitation on Fees.--Not more than a total of 10
percent of the payment authorized by subsection (a) shall be
paid to or received by agents or attorneys for services
rendered in connection with obtaining such payment, any
contract to the contrary notwithstanding. Any person who
violates this subsection shall be fined not more than $1,000.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 178. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
the establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

national center for social work research act

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
amend the Public Health Service Act for the establishment of a National
Center for Social Work Research.
Social workers provide a multitude of health care delivery services
throughout America to our children, families, the elderly, and persons
suffering from various forms of abuse and neglect.
The purpose of this center is to support and disseminate information
with respect to basic and clinical social work research, training, and
other programs in patient care, with emphasis on service to underserved
and rural populations.
Social work research has grown in size and scope since the 1980's. In
1998, the National Institutes of Mental Health led the way with $17
million in funding for 61 social work research grants. Dr. Pat Ewalt,
Dean of the Department of Social Work at the University of Hawaii, is
one of the foremost leaders in the field of social work research and
has worked diligently to gain recognition of the many important
contributions of social work to mental and behavioral health care
delivery.
While the Federal Government provides funding for various social work
research activities through the National Institutes of Health and other
Federal agencies, there presently is no coordination or direction of
these critical activities and no overall assessment of needs and
opportunities for empirical knowledge development. The establishment of
a Center for Social Work Research would result in improved behavioral
and mental health

[[Page 928]]

care outcomes for our nation's children, families, and elderly, and
others.
In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-
effective, research-based, quality health care to all Americans, we
must recognize the important contributions of social work researchers
to health care delivery and the central role that the Center for Social
Work can provide in facilitating this process.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed on the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 178

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 ``National Center for Social
Work Research Act''.

SEC. 2 ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CENTER FOR SOCIAL WORK
RESEARCH.

(a) In General.--Section 401(b)(2) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 281(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(F) The National Center for Social Work Research.''.
(b) Establishment.--Part E of title IV of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:

``Subpart 5--National Center for Social Work Research

``SEC. 485G. PURPOSE OF CENTER.

``The general purpose of the National Center for Social
Work Research (referred to in this subpart as the `Center')
is the conduct and support of, and dissemination of
information with respect to basic, clinical, and services
social work research, training, and other programs in patient
care, including child and family care.

``SEC. 485H. SPECIFIC AUTHORITIES.

``(a) In General.--To carry out the purpose described in
section 485G, the Director of the Center may provide research
training and instruction and establish, in the Center and in
other nonprofit institutions, research traineeships and
fellowships in the study and investigation of the prevention
of disease, health promotion, and the social work care of
persons with and families of individuals with acute and
chronic illnesses, including child abuse and neglect and
child and family care.
``(b) Stipends and Allowances.--The Director of the Center
may provide individuals receiving training and instruction or
traineeships or fellowships under subsection (a) with such
stipends and allowances (including amounts for travel and
subsistence and dependency allowances) as the Director
determines necessary.
``(c) Grants.--The Director of the Center may make grants
to nonprofit institutions to provide training and instruction
and traineeships and fellowships under subsection (a).

``SEC. 485I. ADVISORY COUNCIL.

``(a) Duties.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an
advisory council for the Center that shall advise, assist,
consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary and
the Director of the Center on matters related to the
activities carried out by and through the Center and the
policies with respect to such activities.
``(2) Gifts.--The advisory council for the Center may
recommend to the Secretary the acceptance, in accordance with
section 231, of conditional gifts for study, investigations,
and research and for the acquisition of grounds or
construction, equipment, or maintenance of facilities for the
Center.
``(3) Other duties and functions.--The advisory council for
the Center--
``(A)(i) may make recommendations to the Director of the
Center with respect to research to be conducted by the
Center;
``(ii) may review applications for grants and cooperative
agreements for research or training and recommend for
approval applications for projects that demonstrate the
probability of making valuable contributions to human
knowledge; and
``(iii) may review any grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement proposed to be made or entered into by the Center;
``(B) may collect, by correspondence or by personal
investigation, information relating to studies that are being
carried out in the United States or any other country as to
the diseases, disorders, or other aspects of human health
with respect to which the Center is concerned and, with the
approval of the Director of the Center, make such information
available through appropriate publications for the benefit of
public and private health entities and health professions
personnel and scientists and for the information of the
general public; and
``(C) may appoint subcommittees and convene workshops and
conferences.
``(b) Membership.--
``(1) In general.--The advisory council shall be composed
of the ex officio members described in paragraph (2) and not
more than 18 individuals to be appointed by the Secretary
under paragraph (3).
``(2) Ex officio members.--The ex officio members of the
advisory council shall include--
``(A) the Secretary, the Director of NIH, the Director of
the Center, the Chief Social Work Officer of the Veterans'
Administration, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs, the Associate Director of Prevention Research at the
National Institute of Mental Health, and the Director of the
Division of Epidemiology and Services Research (or the
designees of such officers); and
``(B) such additional officers or employees of the United
States as the Secretary determines necessary for the advisory
council to effectively carry out its functions.
``(3) Appointed members.--The Secretary shall appoint not
to exceed 18 individuals to the advisory council, of which--
``(A) not more than two-thirds of such individual shall be
appointed from among the leading representatives of the
health and scientific disciplines (including public health
and the behavioral or social sciences) relevant to the
activities of the Center, and at least 7 such individuals
shall be professional social workers who are recognized
experts in the area of clinical practice, education, or
research; and
``(B) not more than one-third of such individuals shall be
appointed from the general public and shall include leaders
in fields of public policy, law, health policy, economics,
and management.

The Secretary shall make appointments to the advisory council
in such a manner as to ensure that the terms of the members
do not all expire in the same year.
``(4) Compensation.--Members of the advisory council who
are officers or employees of the United States shall not
receive any compensation for service on the advisory council.
The remaining members shall receive, for each day (including
travel time) they are engaged in the performance of the
functions of the advisory council, compensation at rates not
to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate in effect
for an individual at grade GS-18 of the General Schedule.
``(c) Terms.--
``(1) In general.--The term of office of an individual
appointed to the advisory council under subsection (b)(3)
shall be 4 years, except that any individual appointed to
fill a vacancy on the advisory council shall serve for the
remainder of the unexpired term. A member may serve after the
expiration of the member's term until a successor has been
appointed.
``(2) Reappointments.--A member of the advisory council who
has been appointed under subsection (b)(3) for a term of 4
years may not be reappointed to the advisory council prior to
the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the date on
which the prior term expired.
``(3) Vacancy.--If a vacancy occurs on the advisory council
among the members under subsection (b)(3), the Secretary
shall make an appointment to fill that vacancy not later than
90 days after the date on which the vacancy occurs.
``(d) Chairperson.--The chairperson of the advisory council
shall be selected by the Secretary from among the members
appointed under subsection (b)(3), except that the Secretary
may select the Director of the Center to be the chairperson
of the advisory council. The term of office of the
chairperson shall be 2 years.
``(e) Meetings.--The advisory council shall meet at the
call of the chairperson or upon the request of the Director
of the Center, but not less than 3 times each fiscal year.
The location of the meetings of the advisory council shall be
subject to the approval of the Director of the Center.
``(f) Administrative Provisions.--The Director of the
Center shall designate a member of the staff of the Center to
serve as the executive secretary of the advisory council. The
Director of the Center shall make available to the advisory
council such staff, information, and other assistance as the
council may require to carry out its functions. The Director
of the Center shall provide orientation and training for new
members of the advisory council to provide such members with
such information and training as may be appropriate for their
effective participation in the functions of the advisory
council.
``(g) Comments and Recommendations.--The advisory council
may prepare, for inclusion in the biennial report under
section 485J--
``(1) comments with respect to the activities of the
advisory council in the fiscal years for which the report is
prepared;
``(2) comments on the progress of the Center in meeting its
objectives; and
``(3) recommendations with respect to the future direction
and program and policy emphasis of the center.
The advisory council may prepare such additional reports as
it may determine appropriate.

``SEC. 485J. BIENNIAL REPORT.

``The Director of the Center, after consultation with the
advisory council for the Center, shall prepare for inclusion
in the biennial report under section 403, a biennial report
that shall consist of a description of the

[[Page 929]]

activities of the Center and program policies of the Director
of the Center in the fiscal years for which the report is
prepared. The Director of the Center may prepare such
additional reports as the Director determines appropriate.
The Director of the Center shall provide the advisory council
of the Center an opportunity for the submission of the
written comments described in section 485I(g).''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 179. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide
health care practitioners in rural areas with training in preventive
health care, including both physical and mental care, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Health care training act of 1999

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural
Preventive Health Care Training Act of 1999, a bill that responds to
the dire need of our rural communities for quality health care and
disease prevention programs.
Almost one fourth of Americans live in rural areas and frequently
lack access to adequate physical and mental health care. As many as 21
million of the 34 million people living in underserved rural areas are
without access to a primary care provider. In areas where providers
exist, there are numerous limits to access, such as geography,
distance, lack of transportation, and lack of knowledge about available
resources. Due to the divesity of rural populations, language and
cultural obstacles are often a factor in the access to medical care.
Compound these problems with limited financial resources and many
Americans living in rural communities go without vital health care,
especially preventive care. Children fail to receive immunizations and
routine checkups. Preventable illnesses and injuries occur needlessly
and lead to expensive hospitalizations. Early symptoms of emotional
problems and substance abuse go undetected and often develop into full
blown disorders.
An Institute of Medicine (IOM) report entitled, ``Reducing Risks for
Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research''
highlights the benefits of preventive care for all health problems.
Training of health care providers in prevention is crucial in order to
meet the demand for care in underserved areas. Currently, rural health
care providers face a lack of preventive care training opportunities.
Interdisciplinary preventive training of rural health care providers
must be encouraged. Through interdisciplinary training rural health
care providers can build a strong foundation from the behavioral,
biological and psychological sciences to form the most effective
preventive care possible. Interdisciplinary team prevention training
will also facilitate both health and mental health clinics sharing
single service sites and routine consultation between groups.
Emphasizing the mental health disciplines and their servcies as part of
the health care team will contribute to the overall health of rural
communities.
The Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act of 1999 would implement
the risk-reduction model described in the IOM study. This model is
based on the identification of risk factors and targets specific
interventions for those risk factors.
The human suffering caused by poor health is immeasurable, and places
a huge financial burden on communities, families and individuals. By
implementing preventive measures to reduce this suffering, the
potential psychological and financial savings are enormous.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 179

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 ``Rural Preventive Health Care
Training Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE TRAINING.

Part D of title VII of the Public Health Service Act, as
amended by the Health Professions Education Partnership Act
of 1998, is amended by inserting after section 754 the
following:

``SEC. 754A. PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE TRAINING.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to, and
enter into contracts with, eligible applicants to enable such
applicants to provide preventive health care training, in
accordance with subsection (c), to health care practitioners
practicing in rural areas. Such training shall, to the extent
practicable, include training in health care to prevent both
physical and mental disorders before the initial occurrence
of such disorders. In carrying out this subsection, the
Secretary shall encourage, but may not require, the use of
interdisciplinary training project applications.
``(b) Limitation.--To be eligible to receive training using
assistance provided under subsection (a), a health care
practitioner shall be determined by the eligible applicant
involved to be practicing, or desiring to practice, in a
rural area.
``(c) Use of Assistance.--Amounts received under a grant
made or contract entered into under this section shall be
used--
``(1) to provide student stipends to individuals attending
rural community colleges or other institutions that service
predominantly rural communities, for the purpose of enabling
the individuals to receive preventive health care training;
``(2) to increase staff support at rural community colleges
or other institutions that service predominantly rural
communities to facilitate the provision of preventive health
care training;
``(3) to provide training in appropriate research and
program evaluation skills in rural communities;
``(4) to create and implement innovative programs and
curricula with a specific prevention component; and
``(5) for other purposes as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section,
$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2002.''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 180. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
provide for coverage of services provided by nursing school clinics
under State Medicare programs; to the Committee on Finance.

nursing school clinics act of 1999

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nursing
School Clinics Act of 1999. This measure builds on our concerted
efforts to provide access to quality health care for all Americans by
offering grants and incentives for nursing schools to establish primary
care clinics in underserved areas where additional medical services are
most needed. In addition, this measure provides the opportunity for
nursing schools to enhance the scope of student training and education
by providing firsthand clinical experience in primary care facilities.
Nursing school administered primary care clinics are university or
nonprofit entity primary care centers developed primarily in
collaboration with university schools of nursing and the communities
they serve. These centers are staffed by faculty and staff who are
nurse practitioners and public health nurses. Students supplement
patient care while receiving preceptorships provided by college of
nursing faculty and primary care physicians, often associated with
academic institutions, who serve as collaborators with nurse
practitioners.
To date, the comprehensive models of care provided by nursing clinics
have yielded excellent results including significantly fewer emergency
room visits, fewer hospital inpatient days, and less use of
specialists, as compared to conventional primary health care. The
LaSalle Neighborhood Nursing Center, for example, reported that in
1997, fewer than 0.02 percent of the primary care clients reported
hospitalization for asthma; fewer than 4 percent of expectant mothers
who enrolled delivered low birth rate infants; and 90 percent of
infants and young children were immunized on time. In addition, there
was a 50 percent reduction in emergency room visits and a 97 percent
overall patient satisfaction rate.
The 1997 Balanced Budget Act (P.L. 105-33) included a provision that,
for the first time ever, authorized direct Medicare reimbursement of
all nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists, regardless of
the setting in which services are performed. This provision built upon
previous legislation that allowed direct reimbursement to individual
nurse practitioners for individual services provided in rural health
clinics throughout America. Medicaid

[[Page 930]]

is gradually being reformed to incorporate their services more
effectively.
This bill reinforces the principle of combining health care delivery
in underserved areas with the education of advanced practice nurses. To
accomplish these objectives, Title XIX of the Social Security Act would
be amended to designate that the services provided in these nursing
school clinics are reimbursable under Medicaid. The combination of
grants and the provision of Medicaid reimbursement furnishes the
incentives and operational resources to establish the clinics.
In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-effective
and quality health care to all Americans, we must consider and debate
various proposals, both large and small. Most importantly, we must
approach the issue of health care with creativity and determination,
ensuring that all reasonable avenues are pursued. Nurses have always
been an integral part of health care delivery. The Nursing School
Clinics Act of 1999 recognizes the central role they can perform as
care givers to the medically underserved.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 180

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

SECTION 1. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY NURSING
SCHOOL CLINICS.

(a) In General.--Section 1905(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (26), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (27) as paragraph (28); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (26), the following:
``(27) nursing school clinic services (as defined in
subsection (v)) furnished by or under the supervision of a
nurse practitioner or a clinical nurse specialist (as defined
in section 1861(aa)(5)), whether or not the nurse
practitioner or clinical nurse specialist is under the
supervision of, or associated with, a physician or other
health care provider; and''.
(b) Nursing School Clinic Services Defined.--Section 1905
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(v) The term `nursing school clinic services' means
services provided by a health care facility operated by an
accredited school of nursing which provides primary care,
long-term care, mental health counseling, home health
counseling, home health care, or other health care services
which are within the scope of practice of a registered
nurse.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1902 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended in subsection
(a)(10)(C)(iv), by inserting ``and (27)'' after ``(24)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall
be effective with respect to payments made under a State plan
under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et
seq.) for calendar quarters commencing with the first
calendar quarter beginning after the date of enactment of
this Act.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 181. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
remove the restriction that a professional psychologist or clinical
social worker provide services in a comprehensive outpatient
rehabilitation facility to a patient only under the care of a
physician, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

Autonomous Functioning of Clinical Psychologists and Social Workers
Under Medicare Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation Facility Program

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to
authorize the autonomous functioning of clinical psychologists and
clinical social workers within the Medicare comprehensive outpatient
rehabilitation facility program.
In my judgment, it is truly unfortunate that Medicare requires
clinical supervision of the services provided by certain health
professionals and does not allow these health professionals to function
to the full extent of their state practice licenses. It is especially
appropriate that those who need the services of outpatient
rehabilitation facilities have access to a wide range of social and
behavioral science expertise. Clinical psychologists and clinical
social workers are recognized as independent providers of mental health
care services through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, the
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, the
Medicare (Part B) Program, and numerous private insurance plans.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 181

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

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION THAT A PROFESSIONAL
PSYCHOLOGIST OR CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER PROVIDE
SERVICES IN A COMPREHENSIVE OUTPATIENT
REHABILITATION FACILITY TO A PATIENT ONLY UNDER
THE CARE OF A PHYSICIAN.

(a) In General.--Section 1861(cc)(2)(E) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(cc)(2)(E)) is amended by
inserting before the semicolon ``(except with respect to
services provided by a professional psychologist or a
clinical social worker)''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to services provided on or after January 1, 2000.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 182. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to require the
issuance of a prisoner-of-war medal to civilian employees of the
Federal Government who are forcibly detained or interned by an enemy
government or a hostile force under wartime conditions; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.

establishment of a prisoner of war medal for civilian federal employees

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, all too often we find that our Nation's
civilians who have been captured by a hostile government do not receive
the recognition they deserve. The bill I introduce today would correct
this inequity and establish a prisoner of war medal for civilian
employees of the Federal Government.
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. 182

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

SECTION 1. PRISONER-OF-WAR MEDAL FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

(a) Authority To Issue Prisoner-of-War Medal.--(1) Subpart
A of part III of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after chapter 23 the following new chapter:

``CHAPTER 25--MISCELLANEOUS AWARDS

``Sec.
``2501. Prisoner-of-war medal: issue.

Sec. 2501. Prisoner-of-war medal: issue

``(a) The President shall issue a prisoner-of-war medal to
any person who, while serving in any capacity as an officer
or employee of the Federal Government, was forcibly detained
or interned, not as a result of such person's own willful
misconduct--
``(1) by an enemy government or its agents, or a hostile
force, during a period of war; or
``(2) by a foreign government or its agents, or a hostile
force, during a period other than a period of war in which
such person was held under circumstances which the President
finds to have been comparable to the circumstances under
which members of the armed forces have generally been
forcibly detained or interned by enemy governments during
periods of war.
``(b) The prisoner-of-war medal shall be of appropriate
design, with ribbons and appurtenances.
``(c) Not more than one prisoner-of-war medal may be issued
to a person under this section or section 1128 of title 10.
However, for each succeeding service that would otherwise
justify the issuance of such a medal, the President (in the
case of service referred to in subsection (a) of this
section) or the Secretary concerned (in the case of service
referred to in section 1128(a) of title 10) may issue a
suitable device to be worn as determined by the President or
the Secretary, as the case may be.
``(d) For a person to be eligible for issuance of a
prisoner-of-war medal, the person's conduct must have been
honorable for the period of captivity which serves as the
basis for the issuance.
``(e) If a person dies before the issuance of a prisoner-
of-war medal to which he is entitled, the medal may be issued
to the person's representative, as designated by the
President.
``(f) Under regulations to be prescribed by the President,
a prisoner-of-war medal that

[[Page 931]]

is lost, destroyed, or rendered unfit for use without fault
or neglect on the part of the person to whom it was issued
may be replaced without charge.
``(g) In this section, the term `period of war' has the
meaning given such term in section 101(11) of title 38.''.
(2) The table of chapters at the beginning of part III of
such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to
chapter 23 the following new item:

``25. Miscellaneous Awards..................................2501''.....

(b) Applicability.--Section 2501 of title 5, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a), applies with respect to any
person who, after April 5, 1917, is forcibly detained or
interned as described in subsection (a) of such section.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 183. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize
certain disabled former prisoners of war to use Department of Defense
commissary and exchange stores; to the Committee on Armed Services.

use of department of defense commissary and exchange stores

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
enable former prisoners of war who have been separated honorably from
their respective services and who have been rated to have at least a 30
percent service-connected disability to have the use of both military
commissary and post exchange privileges. While I realize it is
impossible to adequately compensate one who has endured long periods of
incarceration at the hands of our Nation's enemies, I do feel that this
gesture is both meaningful and important to those concerned. It also
serves as a reminder that our Nation has not forgotten their
sacrifices.
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. 183

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

SECTION 1. USE OF COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE STORES BY CERTAIN
DISABLED FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR.

(a) In General.--Chapter 54 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1064 the
following new section:

``Sec. 1064a. Use of commissary stores by certain disabled
former prisoners of war

``(a) In General.--Under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense, former prisoners of war described in
subsection (b) may use commissary and exchange stores.
``(b) Covered Individuals.--Subsection (a) applies to any
former prisoner of war who--
``(1) is separated from active duty in the armed forces
under honorable conditions; and
``(2) has a service-connected disability rated by the
Secretary of Veterans' Affairs at 30 percent or more.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `former prisoner of war' has the meaning
given the term in section 101(32) of title 38.
``(2) The term `service-connected' has the meaning given
the term in section 101(16) of title 38.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 1064 the following new item:

``1064a. Use of commissary stores by certain disabled former prisoners
of war.''.
______

By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Burns,
Mr. Brownback, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 185. A bill to establish a Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the
Office of the United States Trade Representative; to the Committee on
Finance.

chief agricultural negotiator

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with
the Democratic Minority Leader, Senator Daschle, that would ensure that
our nation's farmers and ranchers have a permanent trade ambassador.
Our farmers need a representative in the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative that will focus solely on opening foreign markets and
ensuring a level playing field for U.S. agricultural products and
services.
In September 1998, American farmers and ranchers faced the first-ever
monthly trade deficit for U.S. farm and food products since the United
States began tracking trade data in 1941. This sounds the alarm for a
state like Missouri that receives over one-fourth of its farm income
from agricultural exports.
When I'm thinking about what is good for the nation's agricultural
policy, I ask, ``What is good for Missouri?'' That's because Missouri
is a leader in farming. Missouri is the No. 2 State in the number of
farms we have--second only to Texas. We have just about every crop
imaginable, and Missourians are the nation's top producers in many of
these crops. Missouri is the second leading state for beef cows.
Missouri is second in hay production. Missouri is one of the top five
pork producing states. And Missouri is among the top ten states for
production of rice, cotton, corn, winter wheat, milk, and watermelon.
With 26 percent of their income coming from exports, Missouri farmers
need to know that their ability to export will expand over time, rather
than become subject to foreign protectionist policies that choke them
out of their market share. During the 1966 farm bill debate, in
exchange for decreased government payments, our farmers were promised
more export opportunities. It is time for us to deliver on this
promise.
America's farmers and ranchers need a permanent Ambassador who will
represent their interests worldwide, especially as we face more
negotiations in the World Trade Organization and regional negotiations
with Central and South America. There are a lot of opportunities that
could be opened up to our farmers and ranchers in the coming years.
Currently, Mr. Peter Scher serves as a Special Negotiator for
Agriculture, and he has already been very helpful in taking strong
stands for our farmers and ranchers. I want to thank him for his work
most recently on getting pork added to the United States' retaliation
list against the European Union. Senator Kerrey and I, and 40 other
senators, initiated a broad, bipartisan effort to make the needs of our
pork farmers a priority, and we appreciated the fact that we could work
closely with someone whose mission is to serve the interests of our
nation's farmers. However, while Ambassador Scher may serve our
Nation's farmers and ranchers until the end of the current
administration, his position has not been made a permanent position
through legislation. Therefore, we are introducing this legislation
today because we want to ensure that the Agriculture Ambassador
position will transcend administrations.
The Agricultural Ambassador (the Chief Agricultural Negotiator) will
be responsible for conducting trade negotiations and enforcing trade
agreements relating to U.S. agricultural products and services. Also,
under the bill the Chief's Agricultural Negotiator would be a vigorous
advocate on behalf of U.S. agricultural interests. It is imperative
that U.S. interests always have a strong, clear voice at international
negotiations.
Foreign countries will always have agriculture trade barriers--so
farmers must always have an ambassador representing their interests. We
need to send the message to foreign governments that we are serious
about breaking down barriers in their markets--now and in the future.
Our farmers and ranchers need to know that their interests will
always have a sure seat at the table for trade negotiations. Canada and
Mexico have already concluded free trade arrangements with Chile.
Farmers in Canada can send their agricultural products to Chile and, in
most instances, face a zero percent tariff level, while U.S. farmers
are confronted with an average tariff rate of 11 percent in the same
market.
The EU is negotiating a trade deal with Mexico, Chile, Argentina,
Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Thus, these countries will give European
farmers lower tariffs and more access to their markets at U.S. farmers'
and ranchers' expense. America must lead, not follow--in our back yard
and around the world.
The Agriculture Ambassador bill we are introducing today is supported
by more than 80 agricultural trade associations. Additionally, State
branches of these national associations, such as

[[Page 932]]

the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation and the Missouri Pork Producers
Council, are weighing in their strong support.
We need to utilize every opportunity we have to help our farmers and
ranchers. Making permanent the position of a U.S. Trade Representative
for Agriculture will guarantee that the interests of American farmers
and ranchers will always have a prominent seat at the negotiating table
and will ensure that our agreements are more aggressively enforced.
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. 185

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

SECTION 1. CHIEF AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATOR.

(a) Establishment of a Position.--There is established the
position of Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of
the United States Trade Representative. The Chief
Agricultural Negotiator shall be appointed by the President,
with the rank of Ambassador, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.
(b) Functions.--The primary function of the Chief
Agricultural Negotiator shall be to conduct trade
negotiations and to enforce trade agreements relating to U.S.
agricultural products and services. The Chief Agricultural
Negotiator shall be a vigorous advocate on behalf of U.S.
agricultural interests. The Chief Agricultural Negotiator
shall perform such other functions as the United States Trade
Representative may direct.
(c) Compensation.--The Chief Agricultural Negotiator shall
be paid at the highest rate of basic pay payable to a member
of the Senior Executive Service.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill that will
establish a Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the United
States Trade Representative.
As valuable as this position is to our Nation's farmers, I am
concerned that it is not statutorily part of the Federal Government
that plays a large role in agriculture trade policy. In December, Peter
Scher, the current agriculture negotiator was an instrumental player in
a United States-Canada trade agreement that addressed many of the
inequities as a result of past trade agreements.
Montana's farmers, and many other farmers nationwide, are dependent
on this office to provide oversight and redress for NAFTA and other b-
and multi-lateral agreements that may have not had U.S. agriculture in
mind. I say that with a critical tone as past agreements negotiated by
the current administration were focused on high-tech industries, all
but ignoring the plight of the American farmer.
The Canadian trade problem in Montana is monumental, however, it is
just a small taste of the beginning of our agriculture trade problems
with the European Union which has been less than compromising on many
issues.
The European Union (EU) unfairly restricts imports of U.S.
agricultural products. Breaking down these barriers to trade must be a
top priority of the U.S.T.R. American farmers can compete for any
market, anywhere in the world, but they must have access to a level
playing field.
We currently have an extraordinary number of unresolved trade
disputes with the EU, yet the U.S.T.R. continues to seek U.S./EU trade
pacts on issues unrelated to agriculture. It is critical that the
U.S.T.R.'s agricultural trade negotiator be included in these
discussions. Otherwise, we will be forced to react to poor planning and
negotiating as we were last month in Canada. In 1996, U.S. agricultural
exports reached a record level of $60 billion, compared to a total U.S.
merchandise trade deficit of $170 billion the same year. By
establishing this position within the U.S.T.R., it is my hope the
administration will recognize what America's farmers mean to our
Nation's economy.
______

By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Gorton):
S. 186. A bill to provide for the reorganization of the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

ninth circuit division

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my
distinguished colleague from Washington. Senator Slade Gorton, in
introducing legislation that will go far in improving the consistency,
predictability and coherency of case law in the Ninth Circuit U.S.
Court of Appeals.
Our bill, The Federal Ninth Circuit Reorganization Act of 1999,
adopts the recommendations of a congressionally-mandated Commission
that studied the alignment of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Retired
Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White, chaired the scholarly Commission.
The Commission's Report, released last December, calls for a division
of the Ninth Circuit into three regionally based adjudicative
divisions--the Northern, Middle, and Southern. Each of these regional
divisions would maintain a majority of its judges within its region.
Each division would have exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the
judicial districts within its region. Further, each division would
function as a semi-autonomous decisional unit. To resolve conflicts
that may develop between regions, a Circuit Division for Conflict
Correction would replace the current limited and ineffective en banc
system. Lastly, the Circuit would remain intact as an administrative
unit, functioning as it now does.
It is important to note that the Commission adopted the arguments
that I and several other Senators have put forth to justify a complete
division of he Ninth Circuit--Circuit population, record caseloads, and
inconsistency in judicial decisions. However, the Commission rejected
an administrative division because it believed it would ``deprive the
courts now in the Ninth Circuit of the administrative advantages
afforded by the present circuit configuration and deprive the West and
the Pacific seaboard of a means for maintaining uniform federal law in
that area.''
While I don't necessarily reach the same conclusion as the Commission
(that an administrative division of the Ninth Circuit is not
warranted), I strongly agree with the Committee's conclusion that the
restructuring of the Ninth Circuit as proposed in the Commission's
Report will ``increase the consistency and coherence of the law,
maximize the likelihood of genuine collegiality, establish an effective
procedure for maintaining uniform decisional law within the circuit,
and relate the appellate forum more closely to the region it serves.''
Mr. President, swift congressional action is needed. One need only
look at the contours of the Ninth Circuit to see the need for this
reorganization. Stretching from the Arctic Circle to the Mexican
border, past the tropics of Hawaii and across the International
Dateline to Guam and the Mariana Islands, by any means of measurement,
the Ninth Circuit is the largest of all U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
The Ninth Circuit serves a population of more than 49 million people,
well over a third more than the next largest circuit. By 2010, the
Census Bureau estimates that the Ninth Circuit's population will be
more than 63 million--a 40-percent increase in just 13 years, which
inevitably will create an even more daunting caseload.
Because of its massive size, there often results a decrease in the
ability of judges to keep abreast of legal developments within the
Ninth Circuit. This unwieldy caseload creates an inconsistency in
Constitutional interpretation. In fact, Ninth Circuit cases have an
extraordinarily high reversal rate by the Supreme Court. (During the
Supreme Court's 1996-97 session, the Supreme Court overturned 95
percent of the Ninth Circuit cases heard by the Court.) This lack of
Constitutional consistency discourages settlements and leads to
unnecessary litigation.
Ninth Circuit Judge, Diramuid O'Scannlain described the problem as
follows:

An appellate court must function as a unified body, and it
must speak with a unified voice. It must maintain and shape a
coherent body of law. . . . As the number of opinions
increase, we judges risk losing the ability to keep track of
precedents and the ability to know what our circuit's law is.
In short, bigger is not better.

[[Page 933]]

The legislation that Senator Gorton and I introduce today is a
sensible reorganization of the Ninth Circuit. The Northern Division of
the Ninth Circuit would join Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Montana, and
Idaho. This proposal reflects legislation I introduced in the last
Congress which created a new Twelfth Circuit consisting of the States
of the Northwest. Like my previous legislation, the Commission's report
will go far in creating regional commonality and greater consistency
and dependency in legal decisions.
However, it is my strong suggestion that when the Senate Judiciary
Committee conducts hearings on their legislation, certain modifications
be closely examined:
1. Elimination of the requirement that judges within a region are
required to rotate to other regions of the Circuit;
2. Adjustment of the regional alignments to include Hawaii, the
Mariana Islands and the Territory of Guam in the Northern Region; and
3. Shortening the period in which the Federal Judicial Center
conducts a study of the effectiveness and efficiency of the Ninth
Circuit divisions from 8 years to 3 years.
Mr. President, Congress has waited long enough to correct the
problems of the Ninth Circuit. The 49 million residents of the Ninth
Circuit are the persons that suffer. Many wait years before cases are
heard and decided, prompting many to forego the entire appellate
process. The Ninth Circuit has become a circuit where justice is not
swift and not always served.
Mr. President, we have known the problem of the Ninth Circuit for a
long time. It's time to solve the problem. The Commission's
recommendations, as reflected in our legislation, is a good first
start. I hope we can resolve this issue this year.
______

By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Edwards, and Mr. Hollings):
S. 187. A bill to give customers notice and choice about how their
financial institutions share or sell their personally identifiable
sensitive financial information, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

financial information privacy act of 1999

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very important
issue: the protection of every American's personal, sensitive,
financial information that is held by their bank, securities broker-
dealer, or insurance company. I am introducing a bill to provide basic
financial privacy protections for our citizens. I am pleased that
Senators Dodd, Bryan, Leahy, Edwards, and Hollings are joining me in
the introduction of the Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999.
This bill seeks to protect a fundamental right of privacy for every
American who entrusts his or her highly sensitive and confidential
financial information to a financial institution. Every American should
know whether the financial institution with which he or she does
business undertakes to sell or share that personal sensitive
information with anyone else. Every American should know who would be
obtaining that information, and why. Every American should have the
opportunity to say ``no'' if he or she does not want that confidential
information disclosed. Every American should be allowed to make certain
that the information is correct. And these rights should be
enforceable.
This bill, Mr. President, would accomplish these objectives.
Few Americans understand that, under current Federal law, a bank,
broker, or insurance company may take any information it obtains about
a customer through his or her transactions, and sell or transfer that
information to a third party. For example, they may sell that
information to a direct marketer or another financial institution, or
post it on an Internet website without obtaining the customer's consent
or even notifying the customer.
The amount of information that can be disclosed is enormous. It
includes:
Savings and checking account balances;
certificate of deposit maturity dates and balances;
any check an individual writes;
any check that is deposited into a customer's account;
stock and mutual fund purchases and sales;
life insurance payouts; and
health insurance claims.
Today's technology makes it easier, faster, and less costly than ever
for institutions to have immediate access to large amounts of customer
information; to analyze that data; and to send that data to others.
Banks, securities firms, and insurance companies are increasingly
affiliating and ``cross-marketing,'' or selling the products of
affiliates to existing customers. This can entail the warehousing of
large amounts of highly sensitive customer information and selling it
to or sharing it with other companies, for purposes unknown to the
customer. While cross-marketing can bring new and beneficial products
to receptive consumers, it can also result in unwanted invasions of
personal privacy without customers' knowledge.
A June 8, 1998 Business Week commentary entitled ``Big Banker May Be
Watching You'' underscored the potential abuses:

Suppose that when you retired, your bank started deluging
you with mailings for senior services--each tailored to your
exact income, health needs, and spending habits. Or your
lender slashed your credit-card limit from $20,000 to $500
after you were diagnosed with a serious disease.
Those two Orwellian scenarios may sound far-fetched, but
they might not be for long. In the wake of the . . . mad rush
by large insurers to acquire thrift charters, consumer
advocates are raising valid questions about whether the
insurance arms of these new conglomerates will share
sensitive medical records with their lending and marketing
divisions.

The New York Times in an October 11, 1998 article entitled ``Privacy
Matters: When Bigger Banks Aren't Better'' observed that:

A growing number of bankers, lawmakers, banking regulators
and consumer advocates [are] worried about the potential dark
side of the mergers sweeping the financial industry. As
banks, brokerage firms and insurance companies combine into
huge new conglomerates, and with legislation before Congress
to make such mergers even easier, there is increasing concern
about the amount of personal financial and medical data that
can be collected under one roof.

Surveys show that the public is widely concerned about its privacy. A
November 1998 Louis Harris & Associates survey found that 88 percent of
consumers are concerned about threats to their personal privacy--more
than half, 55 percent, are ``very concerned.'' 82 percent of consumers
say they have lost all control over how personal information is used by
companies and 61 percent do not believe that their rights to privacy as
a consumer are adequately protected by law or business practices.
Major corporations have bumped up against privacy concerns when
expanding their marketing services. For example, in the last 2 years,
some major consumer companies announced that they would share or sell
their customers' private data to marketers. When customers learned
through newspapers stories what was happening, they complained strongly
and the companies abandoned the planned sales of the data.
Citizen groups have recently expressed serious concerns about the
privacy implications of banks' amassing large databases to meet
proposed regulatory requirements to ``know your customers.''
The Washington Post in an October 31, 1998 editorial entitled
``Privacy Here and Abroad'' observed widepsread public concern over
privacy, stating:

Congress has protected citizens' privacy on prior occasions. In
response to

[[Page 934]]

public concerns, Congress passed privacy laws restricting private
companies' disclosure of customer information without customer consent,
such as in the Cable Communications Policy Act and the Video Privacy
Protection Act. Yet while video rentals and cable television selections
are prohibited by law from being disclosed, millions of Americans'
financial transactions each day have no Federal privacy protection.
Abuses have arisen from the sharing of financial information without
a customer's knowledge or permission. For example, the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) last year took enforcement action against a
large bank that had been giving sensitive customer financial
information, including lists of customers with maturing certificates of
deposit, to an affiliated stock broker. The SEC found the bank and the
broker's employees ``blurred the distinction between the bank and the
broker dealer'' and the broker's sales representatives ``used
materially false and misleading sales practices'' which ``culminated in
unsuitable purchases by investors.'' The SEC found many of the targeted
bank customers were elderly.
Many groups have voiced support for legislative consumer financial
privacy protections. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)
submitted testimony to the Senate Banking Committee expressing concern
about the vulnerability of citizens, particularly the elderly, and
saying that:

AARP supports the principle that consumers should have a
voice in the use of their personal financial information.
Currently, banks freely share information about their
customers' insured deposit accounts with their uninsured,
non-banking affiliates. Brokerage affiliates routinely
solicit bank customers based upon this information. This not
only blurs the line between banking and non-banking
functions, but furthers confuses consumers about which
products are insures by the bank, and which are merely sold
by the bank's securities affiliate without guarantees.
Customers should be given the choice as to whether banks can
share information about their accounts with any other entity.

Subsequently, in a letter dated August 25, 1998 with views on H.R.
10, AARP expressed its special concern about older Americans'
vulnerability:

[E]lderly Americans are among those most vulnerable to the
complex and fundamental changes already occurring in this
period of financial transformation--and they will be put at
further risk by the financial mergers permitted by this
proposed legislation if the issue of information privacy is
not addressed.

In a written statement before the Banking Committee on June 24, 1998,
Consumers Union testified,

As financial services firms diversity and ``cross market''
an array of financial products, their interest in obtaining
information about consumers is on a collision course with
consumers' interest in protecting their privacy. . . . We
believe legislation should prohibit depository institutions
and their affiliates from sharing or disclosing information
among affiliates or to third parties without first obtaining
the customer's written consent.

A group of seven privacy and consumer groups, representing
conservative and liberal orientations, including The Free Congress
Research and Education Foundation, Consumers Federation of America,
Consumers Union, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Privacy
International, Privacy Times, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group,
wrote on August 26 1998 to all Senate Banking Committee Members to
``sound an urgent alarm about the lack of protections for consumers'
financial privacy.''
On September 9, 1998, The Washington Post published an editorial, ``.
. . And a Matter of Privacy,'' arguing,

The Post editorial concluded that the privacy amendment to last
year's proposed financial modernization legislation which I introduced
with Senators Dodd and Bryan was ``a protection well worth considering,
especially in the banking context. As the pace of the much-touted
`information economy' quickens, safeguards against these previous
unimagined forms of commerce become ever more important.''
The United States now faces pressure from the European Union nations
as a result of our lack of privacy protections, in comparison with the
ones implemented by the European Union. The European Union Data
Protection Directive, which went into effect on October 25, 1998, goes
much further than any privacy protections in place in the U.S. The
Directive requires that member states protect privacy rights in the
collection of data by both the public and private sectors. It prohibits
the transfer of data without first obtaining the individual's
unambiguous consent regarding the transfer and use of his or her
personal financial data.
The EU Directives provides ``that the transfer to a third country of
personal data . . . may take place only if . . . the third country in
question ensures an adequate level of protection.'' Since the European
Union views current U.S. privacy policy as inadequate, U.S. companies
that do not provide adequate privacy safeguards may have difficulty
conducting business in the EU. The Department of Commerce proposed a
safe harbor so that companies which meet certain guidelines would be
allowed to conduct business in the EU and send data from the EU to the
United States. The EU has not accepted the proposed safe harbor as
adequate, and negotiations continue. Meanwhile, U.S. businesses must
negotiate private privacy agreements with EU countries or face
uncertainties in doing business. Congress by enacting privacy
protection legislation could meet the EU standard and thereby solve
this problem for American companies.
Unfortunately, industry self-regulation to protect the privacy of
information has been tried and, generally, has not worked. Many, if not
most, consumers are not informed of plans to sell or share their
financial transaction and experience data, are not notified of a right
to object, have no access to verify the accuracy of data, and have no
independent body to enforce privacy protection. Recent studies by the
FTC and the FDIC of on-line Internet privacy protection found self-
regulation to be ineffective. Privacy protections for ``off-line''
transactions are far weaker.
I believe that the protection of the privacy of customers' personal
financial information is much too important to ignore any longer.
Therefore, I am, along with Senators Dodd, Bryan, Leahy, Edwards, and
Hollings, introducing the Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999.
This bill would require the Federal banking regulators--the Federal
Deposit Insurance Company, Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision--and the
Securities and Exchange Commission to enact rules to protect the
privacy of financial information relating to the customers of the
institutions they regulate.
The regulators would define ``confidential customer information'' in
a way that includes balances, maturity dates, transactions, and payouts
in savings accounts, certificates of deposit, securities holding and
insurance policies. The regulators would require an institution to:
(1) tell its customers what information it will sell or share, and
when, to whom and for what purposes it will be sold or shared;
(2) give customers the right to ``opt out,'' which means they can say
``no'' to the sharing or selling information to affiliates--unless the
customer objects, institutions could sell or share customer financial
data; and
(3) obtain a customer's informed consent before selling or sharing
confidential customer information with an unaffiliated third party.
Under the Act, regulated financial institutions would be required to
allow the customer to review the information to be disclosed for
accuracy and to correct errors. Also, these institutions could not use
confidential customer information obtained from another entity, such as
an insurance underwriter,

[[Page 935]]

unless that entity had given its customers the same type of privacy
protections as the regulated entities had given their customers.
Disclosure of data under several circumstances would be exempted from
coverage, including disclosure of information that is not personally
identifiable, disclosure necessary to execute the customer's
transaction, and other limited purposes. The Federal bank and
securities regulators would enforce the regulations.
The bill recognizes the complexity of the subject matter involved.
Rather than have Congress micromanage a solution, we would leave it to
the regulators with a direction as to the scope and purposes that
should be followed. This approach would afford an opportunity for
public notice and comment, so all of those affected could present their
arguments. The banking and securities regulators would develop the
rules to implement these broad principles in the way most appropriate
for the industry, balancing the consumer's privacy choice with
business' desire to sell or share their customer's sensitive financial
information with others.
As we proceed in an age of technological advances and cross-industry
marketing of financial services, we need to be mindful of the privacy
concerns of the American public. Consumers who wish to keep their
sensitive financial information private should be given a right to do
so. Congress can and should provide that privacy protection by giving
consumers enforceable rights of notice, consent, and access through
passage of the Financial Information Privacy Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the
Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999, together with a brief
summary of the bill and some newspaper articles be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 187

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 ``Financial Information
Privacy Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act--
(1) the term ``covered person'' means a person that is
subject to the jurisdiction of any of the Federal financial
regulatory authorities; and
(2) the term ``Federal financial regulatory authorities''
means--
(A) each of the Federal banking agencies, as that term is
defined in section 3(z) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act;
and
(B) the Securities and Exchange Commission.

SEC. 3. PRIVACY OF CONFIDENTIAL CUSTOMER INFORMATION.

(a) Rulemaking.--The Federal financial regulatory
authorities shall jointly issue final rules to protect the
privacy of confidential customer information relating to the
customers of covered persons, not later than 270 days after
the date of enactment of this Act (and shall issue a notice
of proposed rulemaking not later than 150 days after the date
of enactment of this Act), which rules shall--
(1) define the term ``confidential customer information''
to be personally identifiable data that includes
transactions, balances, maturity dates, payouts, and payout
dates, of--
(A) deposit and trust accounts;
(B) certificates of deposit;
(C) securities holdings; and
(D) insurance policies;
(2) require that a covered person may not disclose or share
any confidential customer information to or with any
affiliate or agent of that covered person if the customer to
whom the information relates has provided written notice, as
described in paragraphs (4) and (5), to the covered person
prohibiting such disclosure or sharing--
(A) with respect to an individual that became a customer on
or after the effective date of such rules, at the time at
which the business relationship between the customer and the
covered person is initiated and at least annually thereafter;
and
(B) with respect to an individual that was a customer
before the effective date of such rules, at such time
thereafter that provides a reasonable and informed
opportunity to the customer to prohibit such disclosure or
sharing and at least annually thereafter;
(3) require that a covered person may not disclose or share
any confidential customer information to or with any person
that is not an affiliate or agent of that covered person
unless the covered person has first--
(A) given written notice to the customer to whom the
information relates, as described in paragraphs (4) and (5);
and
(B) obtained the informed written or electronic consent of
that customer for such disclosures or sharing;
(4) require that the covered person provide notices and
consent acknowledgments to customers, as required by this
section, in separate and easily identifiable and
distinguishable form;
(5) require that the covered person provide notice as
required by this section to the customer to whom the
information relates that describes what specific types of
information would be disclosed or shared, and under what
general circumstances, to what specific types of businesses
or persons, and for what specific types of purposes such
information could be disclosed or shared;
(6) require that the customer to whom the information
relates be provided with access to the confidential customer
information that could be disclosed or shared so that the
information may be reviewed for accuracy and corrected or
supplemented;
(7) require that, before a covered person may use any
confidential customer information provided by a third party
that engages, directly or indirectly, in activities that are
financial in nature, as determined by the Federal financial
regulatory authorities, the covered person shall take
reasonable steps to assure that procedures that are
substantially similar to those described in paragraphs (2)
through (6) have been followed by the provider of the
information (or an affiliate or agent of that provider); and
(8) establish a means of examination for compliance and
enforcement of such rules and resolving consumer complaints.
(b) Limitation.--The rules prescribed pursuant to
subsection (a) may not prohibit the release of confidential
customer information--
(1) that is essential to processing a specific financial
transaction that the customer to whom the information relates
has authorized;
(2) to a governmental, regulatory, or self-regulatory
authority having jurisdiction over the covered financial
entity for examination, compliance, or other authorized
purposes;
(3) to a court of competent jurisdiction;
(4) to a consumer reporting agency, as defined in section
603 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act for inclusion in a
consumer report that may be released to a third party only
for a purpose permissible under section 604 of that Act; or
(5) that is not personally identifiable.
(c) Construction.--Nothing in this section or the rules
prescribed under this section shall be construed to amend or
alter any provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
____

[From the Washington Post, September 9, 1998]

. . . And a Matter of Privacy

Along with medical records, financial and credit records
probably rank among the kinds of personal data Americans most
expect will be kept from prying eyes. As with medical data,
though, the privacy of even highly sensitive financial data
has been increasingly compromised by mergers, electronic
data-swapping and the move to an economy in which the selling
of other people's personal information is highly profitable--
and legal.
Just how much of it is legal in the financial arena,
though, is a complicated question. The Senate, struggling
with a banking bill, is weighing a proposed amendment that
would draw clearer lines. A judge at the Federal Trade
Commission, after years of trying to police the sale of
credit information to telemarketers, two weeks ago ordered
one of the country's largest credit reporting bureaus to stop
selling customers' sensitive data to such marketers in
violation, the agency said, of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The Senate's attention to financial privacy comes in the
form of a proposed amendment to a banking deregulation bill,
already passed by the House, that would allow banks to merge
more freely with the providers of other financial services,
such as insurers. Once such institutions can merge, though,
under current law they are under no restrictions from sharing
even otherwise protected customer information from division
to division. (The Fair Credit Reporting Act, which offers
some tough not comprehensive protection for credit
information, doesn't impose the same restrictions on
affiliated institutions.)
For instance, watchdog groups say, if Citibank merges with
Travelers Inc. insurance as expected, information about your
bank balance or a bounced check could be used to deny you
insurance coverage. Conversely, data from a medical exam for
insurance coverage could be shared with your bank and used to
deny you a loan. Milder possibilities include the use of
knowledge about your financial assets being shared with or
sold to marketers who wish to target customers of a given
income bracket.
An amendment proposed by Sens. Paul Sarbanes and
Christopher Dodd is likely to be weighed by the committee
marking up the Senate bill this week or next. It would block
such possibilities by prohibiting sharing or pooling of data
not covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act--known generally
as ``experience and transaction data,'' and including

[[Page 936]]

account balances and activity--for any purpose beyond the
reason it was collected, unless the customer gives specific
permission.
This goes well beyond existing privacy protections, which
mostly require that the customer actively ``opt out'' of such
uses--a difficult proposition when the customer probably has
not the slightest idea that such swapping and spreading of
information is legal to begin with. For that very reason,
it's a protection well worth considering, especially in the
banking context. As the pace of the much-touted ``information
economy'' quickens, safeguards against these previously
unimagined forms of commerce become ever more important.
____

[From the New York Times, October 11, 1998]

Privacy Matters: When Bigger Banks Aren't Better

(By Leslie Wayne)

Imagine you are being treated for breast cancer, a fact
known to your Travelers' insurance agent from your medical
tests and insurance forms. Imagine also that you are applying
for a mortgage from, say, Citibank, where you've banked for
years and which has just merged with Travelers Group. Despite
your excellent credit rating, your mortgage is denied by
Citibank for reasons that are unclear.
Or suppose you've just inherited lots of money from a
relative's life insurance policy and you put the money into
your Fleet Bank account. Pretty soon you get a call from a
representative of Quick & Reilly, a brokerage firm you have
never heard of but which is owned by Fleet. The broker is
equipped with surprisingly detailed knowledge of your
financial situation--along with a few ideas about how to
invest your windfall.
Both situations may be hypothetical but they aren't so far-
fetched, according to a growing number of bankers, lawmakers,
banking regulators and consumer advocates worried about the
potential dark side of the mergers sweeping the financial
industry. As banks, brokerage firms and insurance companies
combine into huge new conglomerates, and with legislation
before Congress to make such mergers even easier, there is
increasing concern about the amount of personal financial and
medical data that can be collected under one roof.

fear of disclosure

So far, this privacy debate has centered mainly on the use
of patients' medical records, especially by health
maintenance organizations. But a new twist has been added as
banks have expanded into businesses like securities and
insurance sales, both of which involve the collection of a
wide range of personal information.
Just last week, Citicorp and Travelers Group completed
their $50 billion merger, creating the world's largest
financial services conglomerate, with 70 million customers.
The new company, Citigroup, has access to a wealth of
customer information, including mutual fund accounts, health
claims on insurance policies, and credit card, mortgage and
car loan balances. Many consumer advocates are worried that
such sensitive data can easily be transferred from one part
of the company to another and possibly be disclosed to
outside parties.
``It is very important for banks to realize the challenge
they face in the privacy area is something new, different and
more difficult than what they've dealt with before,'' said
Julie Williams, Acting Comptroller of the Currency. ``It's in
their self-interest to recognize privacy as a customer
concern and deal with it successfully or they may be subject
to more restrictive controls on the ability to use this
information.''
Nationsbank, which is acquiring the BankAmerica
Corporation, has already run into trouble with customer
privacy. The company recently paid nearly $40 million to
settle a class-action suit and end a Government investigation
after more than 18,000 customers many of them elderly, were
sold complex derivative securities that were far too risky
for them. Nationbank's brokerage arm had used the bank's
customer list to target people to approach, many of whom
mistakenly believed that the derivatives were safe and
insured. As a result, Nationsbank has imposed new limits on
the use of private data.
``Talking to a banker used to be like going to confession
or seeing a psychiatrist--we thought the information was
protected,'' said Edmund Mierzwinski, executive director of
the U.S. Public Interest Group.
Financial services companies argue that the ability to swap
data between one arm and another is a driving force behind
many mergers. Banks want to broaden their ability to ``cross-
market'' credit cards to checking deposit customers or sell
stocks and bonds to holders of car loans. But bankers say
they must be careful to balance this desire to sell new
products against the need to maintain the trust of their
customers.
``We are very concerned,'' said Edward Yingling, executive
director for government relations at the American Bankers
Association. ``The key question is, what is the proper
balance between appropriate and valuable cross-marketing and
invasions of privacy? No one believes medical records should
be used for cross-marketing in ways that would be invasive.
It's more difficult when financial information can be used to
show our customers that other products might be very good for
them. That's what everyone has to wrestle with.''

promises

Current law allows bank customers to sign ``opt out''
forms, preventing one part of a bank from giving personal
information to another. The Comptroller's office has found,
however, that few banks highlight this option. ``Most bank
customers can't ever recall seeing anything like this,'' Ms.
Williams said.
As part of its merger application to the Federal Reserve
Board, Citigroup made a ``Global Privacy Promise,'' which
would ``provide customers the right to prevent Citigroup from
sharing customer information with others, including
affiliates, for cross-marketing purposes.'' Customers will
also be given opt-out provisions and Travelers has pledged
that it will not share the medical or health information of
its insurance customers ``for marketing purposes.'' Consumer
advocates like Mr. Mierzwinski say such protections should be
a matter of law, and not established case by case.
Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, has
been leading a push in Congress for greater financial privacy
restrictions.
``There are hardly any safeguards out there,'' Mr. Dodd
told the Senate Banking Committee last month. ``As each year
goes by, the vulnerability of the people we represent becomes
more exposed. The longer we delay, we are exposing millions
to unfair access by people who should not have access.''
____

[From the Washington Post, October 31, 1998]

Privacy Here and Abroad

Concern over the privacy of personal data is sharpening as
the problem appears in more and sometimes unexpected
contexts--everything from employer testing of people's
genetic predispositions to resale of their online reading
habits or their bank records. When the data are medical or
financial, everyone but the sellers and resellers seems ready
to agree that people should have some measure of control over
how and by whom their data will be used. But how, other than
piece-meal, can such control be established, and what would a
more general right to data privacy look like?
One approach very different from that of the United States,
as it happens, is about to be thrust upon the consciousness
of many American businesses as a European law called the
European Union Data Privacy Directive goes into effect. The
European directive has drawn attention not only because the
European approach to and history on data privacy are sharply
different from our own but also because the new directive
comes with prohibitions on export that would crimp the
options of any company that does business both here and in
Europe.
The directive imposes sweeping prohibitions on the use of
any personal data without the explicit consent of the person
involved, for that purpose only (repeated uses or resale
require repeated permission) and also bars companies from
exporting any such data to any country not ruled by the EU to
have ``adequate'' privacy protection measures already in
place. The Europeans have not ruled the United States
``adequate'' in this regard--no surprise there--though
individual industries may pass muster or fall under special
exemptions.
That means, for instance, that multinational companies
cannot allow U.S. offices access to personnel data on
European employees, and airlines can't swap reservations data
without restrictions. More to the point, they can't share or
sell the kinds of data on customers that in this country are
now routinely treated as another possible income stream.
Would such restraints be a boon to customers on these shores
too? Or will Americans, as the data companies frequently
argue, find instead that they want the convenience and ``one-
on-one marketing'' that this constant dossier-compiling makes
possible?
In one early case, a U.S. airline is being sued in Sweden
to prevent its compiling and selling a database of, for
instance, passengers who requested kosher meals or wheelchair
assistance on arrival from transatlantic flights. Do
customers want the ``convenience'' of this kind of tracking,
and if not, how might they--we--avoid having it offered? The
contrast between systems is a chance to consider which of the
many business-as-usual uses of data in this country rise to
the level of a privacy violation from which citizens should
be shielded by law.
____

[From Business Week, June 8, 1998]

Big Banker May Be Watching You

(By Dean Foust)

Suppose that when you retired, your bank started deluging
you with mailings for senior services--each tailored to your
exact income, health needs, and spending habits. Or your
lender slashed your credit-card limit from $20,000 to $500
after you were diagnosed with a serious disease.
Those two Orwellian scenarios may sound far-fetched, but
they might not be for long. In the wake of the proposed
megamerger between Citicorp and Travelers Group Inc. and the
mad rush by large insurers to acquire thrift charters,
consumer advocates are raising valid questions about whether
the insurance arms of these new conglomerates will

[[Page 937]]

share sensitive medical records with their lending and
marketing divisions.
Critics fear that as the new Citigroup and other planned
banking behemoths strain to justify their hefty sticker
prices, they'll face increasing pressure to exploit customer
data for profit. But if they overstep their bounds, the
financial industry ``risks a customer backlash that could . .
. lead to restrictions on your ability to use previous
information resources,'' warns Acting Comptroller of the
Currency Julie L. Williams.
Banking representatives downplay the risks, arguing that
lenders would be loath to use health records in the credit
process for fear of violating the Americans with Disabilities
Act. And at Citicorp, spokesman Jack Morris says that ``I
don't think we have even thought about'' using Travelers'
insurance records.
But the biggest justification for creating conglomerates
like Citigroup--and the combined Bank of America-NationsBank
Corp.--is exactly the synergy from cross-marketing new
products. In 1996, bankers lobbied Congress vigorously for
changes in the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 that let
them share more credit information with affiliates dealing in
life insurance, mortgages, and credit cards--much to the
chagrin of activists. ``We think it's inappropriate for banks
to use information in ways that consumers didn't expect,''
says Susan Grant of the National Consumers League.

boilerplate

Unfortunately, banks sharing data with affiliates are
exempt from some of the regulations governing independent
credit bureaus. These bureaus are where lenders up till now
have turned to determine a borrower's creditworthiness. But
while Congress prohibited the credit bureaus from dealing in
medical records without a customer's consent, the new
financial hybrids are under no such restrictions. And while
banks are required to allow customers to opt out of having
their data used for other purposes, banks generally do little
to alert customers to their rights--often burying it in legal
boilerplate.
If financial firms don't want Congress to intervene, they
should erect Chinese walls to prevent confidential health
records from being used in the marketing or lending process.
Otherwise, the extra dollars generated from ``synergy'' will
be diminished by the cost of incurring the public's wrath.
____

Summary of Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999

Sec. 1. Short title
The bill will be called the ``Financial Information Privacy
Act of 1999.''
Sec. 2. Definitions
The Act defines ``federal financial regulatory
authorities'' to include the Fed, FDIC, OTS, OCC and SEC, and
the term ``covered person'' to mean persons subject to the
regulatory authorities' jurisdictions.
Sec. 3. Privacy of confidential customer information
(A) Rulemaking.--The Act requires the Federal Reserve,
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift
Supervision, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and
Securities and Exchange Commission to promulgate rules within
270 days of the Act's enactment to protect the privacy of
financial information relating to the customers of the
institutions they regulate.
(1) The regulators will define ``confidential customer
information,'' which will include transactions, balances,
maturity dates, payouts and payout dates of deposit and trust
account, certificates of deposit, securities holdings and
insurance policies.
(2) The customers will have the right to prohibit
disclosure or sharing confidential customer information with
affiliates of the institution (opt-out).
(3) The institutions could not disclose or share
confidential customer information with unaffiliated third
parties unless the customer has consented to disclosure (opt-
in) after receiving notification.
(4) The notices and consent acknowledgments provided to
customers must be ``in separate and easily identifiable and
distinguishable form.''
(5) The notices would describe the types of information to
be disclosed or shared and under what circumstances, to what
types of businesses or persons and for what purposes the
information could be disclosed or shared.
(6) Customers must be provided with access to the
confidential customer information that could be shared to
review for accuracy.
(7) Covered persons cannot use confidential customer
information from other sources unless the covered persons
have taken reasonable steps to assure that procedures
substantially similar to those provided for in the Act have
been followed.
(8) The regulators shall establish a means of examination
for compliance and enforcement and resolving consumer
complaints.
(B) Limitation.--The Act contains several exceptions,
circumstances under which the privacy protections do not
apply. The Act would not prohibit the release of confidential
customer information:
(1) that is essential to processing a specific financial
transaction that the customer has authorized;
(2) to a government, regulatory or self-regulatory
authority with jurisdiction over the financial institution
for examination, compliance or other authorized purposes;
(3) to a court of competent jurisdiction;
(4) to a consumer reporting agency for inclusion in a
consumer report to be released to a third party for a
permissible purpose; or
(5) that is not personally identifiable.
(C) Construction.--``Nothing in this section or the rules
prescribed under this section shall be construed to amend or
alter any provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.''

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Sarbanes to
introduce the Financial Information Privacy Act. This important
legislation would give customers notice and choice about whether and
how their financial institutions share or sell their confidential
financial information.
The right to privacy is among the most cherished of our
constitutional rights. But this right has been under assault in a
number of areas, including with regard to citizens' financial records,
medical records, and prescription drug and retail purchases. This bill
is an important first step in protecting consumers' most personal,
sensitive financial information: their bank account balances,
transactions involving their stocks and mutual funds, and payouts on
their insurance policies.
This information has become a commodity and is being distributed and
sold among businesses all over the world but without the knowledge or
consent of the consumers whose very own information is being conveyed.
The sharing of their most sensitive, private financial information has
become increasingly prevalent given two key factors: (1) technological
advances which facilitate the collection and retrieval of information;
and (2) the formation of new, diversified business affiliations, under
which companies can more easily access personal data on each other's
customers.
In this environment, there are dangers of misuse and abuse of
confidential financial information. For instance, we know of instances
where, without customer permission, some banks have provided in-house,
affiliate brokers with lists of older customers who have maturing CDs.
The brokers then solicited these consumers for risky investments, which
they mislead the customer to believe were FDIC-insured.
The Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999 would require banks and
securities firms to protect the privacy of their customers' financial
records. Customers would be given the opportunity to prevent banks and
securities firms from disclosing or selling this information to
affiliates. Before banks or securities firms could disclose or sell the
information to third parties, they would be required to give notice to
the customer and obtain the express written permission of the consumer
before making any such disclosure.
Last September, Senator Sarbanes and I proposed legislation similar
to the Financial Information Privacy Act as an amendment to HR 10, the
Financial Services Modernization Act. Unfortunately, the amendment was
defeated in the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 8-10 along party
lines. I was disappointed by this outcome, but am heartened by comments
from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who acknowledge financial
privacy as an important issue. I look forward to working with both
Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee and other
interested members on this critical issue. I urge my colleagues to
support this proposal. I thank the Chair.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Sarbanes in
introducing the Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999. Senator
Sarbanes, along with Senators Dodd and Bryan, have been leaders on the
Senate Banking Committee in protecting the privacy of personal
financial information.
Mr. President, the right to privacy is a personal and fundamental
right protected by the Constitution of the United States. But the
American people are growing more and more concerned over encroachments
on their personal privacy.
It seems that everywhere we turn, new technologies, new
communications media, and new business services created with the best
of intentions and highest of expectations also pose a

[[Page 938]]

threat to our ability to keep our lives to ourselves, to live, work and
think without having giant corporations looking over our shoulders.
This incremental encroachment on our privacy has happened through the
lack of safeguards on personal, financial and medical information about
each of us that can be stolen, sold or mishandled and find its way into
the wrong hands with the push of a button.
Our right of privacy has become one of the most vulnerable rights in
the information age. The digitalization of information and the
explosion in the growth of computing and electronic networking offer
tremendous potential benefits to the way Americans live, work, conduct
commerce, and interact with their government. But the new technology
also presents new threats to our individual privacy and security, in
particular, our ability to control the terms under which our personal
information is acquired, disclosed, and used.
In the financial services industry, for example, conglomerates are
offering a wide variety of services, each of which requires a customer
to provide financial, medical or other personal information. And
nothing in the law prevents subsidiaries within the conglomerate from
sharing this information for uses other than the use the customer
thought he or she was providing it for. In fact, under current Federal
law, a financial institution can sell, share, or publish savings
account balances, certificates of deposit maturity dates and balances,
stock and mutual fund purchases and sales, life insurance payouts and
health insurance claims.
Our legislation would protect the privacy of this financial
information by directing the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Thrift
Supervision, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, and the Securities and Exchange Commission
to jointly promulgate rules requiring financial institutions they
regulate to: (1) inform their customers what information is to be
disclosed, and when, to whom and for what purposes the information is
to be disclosed; (2) allow customers to review the information for
accuracy; and (3) for new customers, obtain the customers' consent to
disclosure, and for existing customers, give the customers a reasonable
opportunity to object to disclosure. These financial institutions could
use confidential customer information from other entities only if the
entities had given their customers similar privacy protections.
I hope the Financial Information Privacy Act is just the beginning of
this new Congress' efforts to address the privacy issues raised by
ultra competitive marketplaces in the information age.
For the past three Congresses, I have introduced comprehensive
medical privacy legislation. I plan to soon introduce the Medical
Information Privacy and Security Act to establish the first
comprehensive federal medical privacy law. It would close the existing
gaps in federal privacy laws to ensure the protection of personally
identifiable health information. Medical records contain the most
intimate, sensitive information about a person and must be safeguarded.
This Congress will also need to consider how our privacy safeguards
for personal, financial and medical information measure up to the tough
privacy standards established by the European Union Data Protection
Directive, which took effect on October 25, 1998. That could be a big
problem for American businesses, since the new rules require EU member
countries to prohibit the transmission of personal data to or through
any non-EU country that fails to provide adequate data protection as
defined under European law.
European officials have said repeatedly over the past year that the
patchwork of privacy laws in the United States may not meet their
standards. Our law is less protective than EU standards in a variety of
respects on a range of issues, including requirements to obtain data
fairly and lawfully; limitations on the collection of sensitive data;
limitations on the purpose of data collection; bans on the collection
and storage of unnecessary personal information; requirements regarding
data accuracy; limitations regarding duration of storage; and
centralized supervision of privacy protections and practices.
The problem is not that Europe protects privacy too much. The problem
is our own failure to keep U.S. privacy laws up to date. The EU
Directive is an example of the kind of privacy protection that American
consumers need and do not have. It has encouraged European companies to
develop good privacy techniques. It has produced policies, including
policies on cryptography, that are consistent with the interests of
both consumers and businesses.
The Financial Information Privacy Act updates U.S. privacy laws in
the evolving financial services industry. It calls for fundamental
protections of the personal, confidential financial information of all
American citizens. I urge my colleagues to support it.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Burns):
S. 188. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
authorize the use of State revolving loan funds for construction of
water conservation and quality improvements; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.

Water Conservation and Quality Incentives Act

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, twenty-five years after enactment of the
Clean Water Act, we still have not achieved the law's original goal
that all our nation's lakes, rivers and streams would be safe for
fishing and swimming.
After 25 years, it's time for the next generation of strategies to
solve our remaining water quality problems. We need to give States new
tools to overcome the new water quality challenges they are now facing.
The money that has been invested in controlling water pollution from
factories and upgrading sewage treatment plants has gone a long way to
controlling these urban pollution sources. In most cases, the remaining
water quality problems are no longer caused by pollution spewing out of
factory pipes. Instead, they are caused by runoff from a myriad of
sources ranging from farm fields to city streets and parking lots.
In my home State of Oregon, more than half of our streams don't fully
meet water quality standards. And the largest problems are
contamination form runoff and meeting the standards for water
temperatures.
In many cases, conventional approaches will not solve these problems.
But we can achieve water temperature standards and obtain other water
quality benefits by enhancing stream flows and improving runoff
controls.
A major problem for many streams in Oregon and in many other areas of
the Western United States is that water supplies are fully appropriated
or over-appropriated. There is currently no extra water to spare for
increased stream flows.
We can't create new water to fill the gap. But we can make more water
available for this use through increased water conservation and more
efficient use of existing water supplies.
The key to achieving this would be to create incentives to reduce
wasteful water use.
In the Western United States, irrigated agriculture is the single
largest user of water. Studies indicate that substantial quantities of
water diverted for irrigation do not make it to the fields, with a
significant portion lost to evaporation or leakage from irrigation
canals.
In Oregon and other States that recognize rights to conserved water
for those who conserve it, irrigators and other water users could gain
rights to use conserved water while also increasing the amount of water
available for other uses by implementing conservation and efficiency
measures to reduce water loss.
The Federal government can play a role in helping meet our nation's
changing water needs. In many Western States, supply problems can be
addressed by providing financial incentives to help water users
implement cost effective water conservation and efficiency measures
consistent with State water law.
And, we can improve water quality throughout the nation by giving
greater flexibility to States to use Clean

[[Page 939]]

Water Act funds to control polluted runoff, if that's where the money
is needed most.
Today, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Burns, in
introducing legislation to authorize the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund program to provide loans to water users to fund conservation
measures or runoff controls. States would be authorized, but not
required, to use their SRF funds for these purposes. Participation by
water users, farmers, ranchers and other eligible loan recipients would
also be entirely voluntary.
The conservation program would be structured to allow participating
users to receive a share of the water saved through conservation or
more efficient use, which they could use in accordance with State law.
This type of approach would create a win/win situation with more water
available for both the conservers and for instream flows. And, by using
the SRF program, the Federal seed money would be repaid over time and
gradually become available to fund conservation or other measures to
solve water quality problems in other areas.
My proposal has the support of the Farm Bureau, Oregon water users,
the Environmental Defense Fund and the Oregon Water Trust.
I urge my colleagues to support giving States greater flexibility to
use their Clean Water funds for water conservation or runoff control
when the State decides that is the best way to solve water quality
problems and the water users voluntarily agree to participate.
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. 188

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 ``Water Conservation and
Quality Incentives Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) in many parts of the United States, water supplies are
insufficient to meet current or expected future demand during
certain times of the year;
(2) a number of factors (including growing populations,
increased demands for food and fiber production, and new
environmental demands for water) are placing increased
demands on existing water supply sources;
(3) increased water conservation, water quality
enhancement, and more efficient use of water supplies could
help meet increased demands on water sources;
(4) in States that recognize rights to conserved water for
persons who conserve it, irrigation suppliers, farmers,
ranchers, and other users could gain rights to use conserved
water while also increasing the quantity of water available
for other beneficial uses by implementing measures to reduce
water loss during transport to, or application on, the
fields;
(5) reducing the quantity of water lost during transport to
the fields and improving water quality can help areas better
meet changing population and economic needs; and
(6) the role of the Federal Government in helping meet
those changing water needs should be to provide financial
assistance to help irrigators, farmers, and ranchers
implement practical, cost-effective water quality and
conservation measures.

SEC. 3. USE OF STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS FOR WATER
CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENTS.

Section 603 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1383) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting ``(3)''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, (4) for construction of water conservation
improvements by eligible recipients under subsection (i)'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Water Conservation Improvements.--
``(1) Definition of eligible recipient.--In this
subsection, the term `eligible recipient' means a
municipality, quasi-municipality, municipal corporation,
special district, conservancy district, irrigation district,
water users' association, tribal authority, intermunicipal,
interstate, or State agency, nonprofit private organization,
a member of such an association, authority, agency, or
organization, or a lending institution, located in a State
that has enacted laws that--
``(A) provide a water user who invests in a water
conservation improvement with a right to use water conserved
by the improvement, as allowed by State law;
``(B) provide authority to reserve minimum flows of streams
in the State; and
``(C) prohibit transactions that adversely affect existing
water rights.
``(2) Financial assistance.--A State may provide financial
assistance from its water pollution control revolving fund to
an eligible recipient to construct a water conservation
improvement, including--
``(A) piping or lining of an irrigation canal;
``(B) wastewater and tailwater recovery or recycling;
``(C) irrigation scheduling;
``(D) water use measurement or metering;
``(E) on-field irrigation efficiency improvements; and
``(F) any other improvement that the State determines will
provide water conservation benefits.
``(3) Voluntary participation.--The participation of an
eligible recipient in the water conservation improvement
shall be voluntary.
``(4) Use of conserved water.--The quantity of water
conserved through the water conservation improvement shall be
allocated in accordance with applicable State law, including
any applicable State law requiring a portion of the conserved
water to be used for instream flow enhancement or other
conservation purposes.
``(5) Limitation on use for irrigated agriculture.--
Conserved water made available under paragraph (4) shall not
be used to irrigate land that has not previously been
irrigated unless the use is authorized by State law and will
not diminish water quality.''.

SEC. 4. USE OF STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS FOR WATER QUALITY
IMPROVEMENTS.

Section 603 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1383) (as amended by section 3) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (c), by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``, and (5) for
construction of water quality improvements or practices by
eligible recipients under subsection (j)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Water Quality Improvements.--
``(1) Definition of eligible recipient.--In this
subsection, the term `eligible recipient' means a
municipality, quasi-municipality, municipal corporation,
special district, conservancy district, irrigation district,
water users' association or member of such an association,
tribal authority, intermunicipal, interstate, or State
agency, nonprofit private organization, or lending
institution.
``(2) Financial assistance.--A State may provide financial
assistance from its water pollution control revolving fund to
an eligible recipient to construct or establish water quality
improvements or practices that the State determines will
provide water quality benefits.
``(3) Voluntary participation.--The participation of an
eligible recipient in the water quality improvements or
practices shall be voluntary.''.

SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

Section 601(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1381(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting ``(3)''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and (4) for construction of water conservation
and quality improvements by eligible recipients under
subsections (i) and (j) of section 603''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 189. A bill to restore the traditional day of observance of
Memorial Day; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

memorial day

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in our effort to accommodate many
Americans by making the last Monday in May, Memorial Day, we have lost
sight of the significance of this day to our nation. Instead of using
Memorial Day as a time to honor and reflect on the sacrifices made by
Americans in combat, many Americans use the day as a celebration of the
beginning of summer. My bill would restore Memorial Day to May 30 and
authorize our flag to fly at half mast on that day. In addition, this
legislation would authorize the President to issue a proclamation
designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and
ceremonies honoring American veterans. This legislation would help
restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they
have made on behalf of our nation.
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:

[[Page 940]]

S. 189

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

SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF TRADITIONAL DAY OF OBSERVANCE OF
MEMORIAL DAY.

(a) In General.--Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended in the item relating to Memorial Day by
striking out ``the last Monday in May.'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``May 30.''.
(b) Display of Flag.--Section 2(d) of the joint resolution
entitled ``An Act to codify and emphasize existing rules and
customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the
United States of America'', approved June 22, 1942 (36 U.S.C.
174(d)), is amended by striking out ``the last Monday in
May;'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``May 30;''.
(c) Proclamation.--The President is authorized and
requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of
the United States to observe Memorial Day as a day for prayer
and ceremonies showing respect for American veterans of wars
and other military conflicts.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 190. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit
former members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected
disability rated as total to travel on military aircraft in the same
manner and to the same extent as retired members of the Armed Forces
are entitled to travel on such aircraft; to the Committee on Armed
Services.

on travel on military aircraft by veterans with service-connected
disabilities

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill which is
of great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation
is designed to extend space-available travel privileges on military
aircraft to those who have been completely disabled in the service of
our country.
Currently, retired members of the Armed Forces are permitted to
travel on a space-available basis on non-scheduled military flights
within the continental United States and on scheduled overseas flights
operated by the Military Airlift Command. My bill would provide the
same benefits for 100 percent service-connected disabled veterans.
Surely, we owe these heroic men and women, who have given so much to
our country, a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can never repay them
for the sacrifice they have made on behalf of our nation, but we can
surely try to make their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. One way in
which we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these
distinguished American veterans. I have received numerous letters from
all over the country attesting to the importance attesting to this
issue by veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their
concern and join me in saying ``thank you'' by supporting this
legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 190

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

SECTION 1. TRAVEL ON MILITARY AIRCRAFT OF CERTAIN DISABLED
FORMER MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--Chapter 53 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding after section 1060a the following
new section:

``Sec. 1060b. Travel on military aircraft: certain disabled
former members of the armed forces

``The Secretary of Defense shall permit any former member
of the armed forces who is entitled to compensation under the
laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs for a
service-connected disability rated as total to travel, in the
same manner and to the same extent as retired members of the
armed forces, on unscheduled military flights within the
continental United States and on scheduled overseas flights
operated by the Military Airlift Command. The Secretary of
Defense shall permit such travel on a space-available
basis.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding after the item
relating to section 1060a the following new item:

``1060b. Travel on military aircraft: certain disabled former members
of the armed forces.''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 191. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to determine the
validity of the claims of certain Filipinos that they performed
military service on behalf of the United States during World War II; to
the Committee on Armed Services.

filipino veterans

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain
nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on
behalf of the United States during World War II.
Mr. President, our Filipino veterans fought side by side and
sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation
would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified
individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits
to which, I believe, they are entitled. As this population becomes
older, it is important for our nation to extend its firm commitment to
the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us
the great nation we are today.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 191

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

SECTION 1. DETERMINATIONS BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.

(a) In General.--Upon the written application of any person
who is a national of the Philippine Islands, the Secretary of
the Army shall determine whether such person performed any
military service in the Philippine Islands in aid of the
Armed Forces of the United States during World War II which
qualifies such person to receive any military, veterans', or
other benefits under the laws of the United States.
(b) Information To Be Considered.--In making a
determination for the purpose of subsection (a), the
Secretary shall consider all information and evidence
(relating to service referred to in subsection (a)) available
to the Secretary, including information and evidence
submitted by the applicant, if any.

SEC. 2. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.

(a) Issuance of Certificate of Service.--The Secretary
shall issue a certificate of service to each person
determined by the Secretary to have performed military
service described in section 1(a).
(b) Effect of Certificate of Service.--A certificate of
service issued to any person under subsection (a) shall, for
the purpose of any law of the United States, conclusively
establish the period, nature, and character of the military
service described in the certificate.

SEC. 3. APPLICATIONS BY SURVIVORS.

An application submitted by a surviving spouse, child, or
parent of a deceased person described in section 1(a) shall
be treated as an application submitted by such person.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION PERIOD.

The Secretary may not consider for the purpose of this Act
any application received by the Secretary more than two years
after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF DETERMINATIONS BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.

No benefits shall accrue to any person for any period prior
to the date of enactment of this Act as a result of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 6. REGULATIONS.

The Secretary shall issue regulations to carry out sections
1, 3, and 4.

SEC. 7. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS'
AFFAIRS.

Any entitlement of a person to receive veterans benefits by
reason of this Act shall be administered by the Department of
Veterans' Affairs pursuant to regulations issued by the
Secretary of Veterans' Affairs.

SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Army.
(2) The term ``World War II'' means the period beginning on
December 7, 1941, and ending on December 31, 1946.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lautenberg,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Akaka,
Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Reed, and
Mr. Schumer):
S. 192. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
increase the

[[Page 941]]

Federal minimum wage; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.

the fair minimum wage act of 1999

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join with Senator
Daschle and other Democratic Senators to introduce the Fair Minimum
Wage Act of 1999. This proposal is strongly supported by President
Clinton, and is also being introduced today in the House of
Representatives by Congressman David Bonior, Democratic Leader Richard
Gephardt, and many of their colleagues.
The federal minimum wage is now $5.15 an hour. Our bill will raise it
by $1.00 over the next two years--a 50 cent increase on September 1,
1999, and another 50 cent increase on September 1, 2000, so that the
minimum wage will reach the level of $6.15 by the turn of the century.
These modest increases will help 20 million workers and their
families. Twelve million Americans earning less than $6.15 an hour
today will see a direct increase in their pay, and another 8 million
Americans earning between $6.15 and $7.15 an hour are also likely to
benefit from the increase.
To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage should
be at least $7.45 an hour today, instead of the current level of $5.15.
The gap shows how far we have fallen short in giving low income workers
their fair share of our extraordinary economic prosperity. Since 1968,
the stock market, adjusted for inflation, has gone up by over 150
percent--while the purchasing power of the minimum wage has gone down
by 30 percent.
The nation's economy is the best it has been in decades. Under the
leadership of President Clinton, the country as a whole is enjoying a
remarkable period of growth and prosperity. Enterprise and
entrepreneurship are flourishing--generating an unprecedented
expansion, with impressive efficiencies and significant job creation.
The stock market has soared. Inflation is low, unemployment is low, and
interest rates are low.
But the benefits of this prosperity have not flowed fairly to minimum
wage earners. These workers can barely make ends meet. Working 40 hours
a week, 52 weeks a year, they earn $10,712 a year--$2,900 below the
poverty line for a family of three. A full day's work should mean a
fair day's pay. But for millions of Americans who earn the minimum
wage, it doesn't.
According to the Department of Labor, 60% of minimum wage earners are
women. Nearly three-fourths are adults. Minimum wage workers are
teacher's aides and child care providers, home health care aides and
clothing store workers. They care for vast numbers of elderly Americans
in nursing homes. They stock shelves in the corner store. They mop the
floors and empty the trash in thousands of office buildings in
communities across the country.
Three-fifths of these workers are the sole breadwinners in their
families. More than half work full time. These families need help. They
work hard and they should be treated with dignity. They deserve this
increase in the minimum wage.
Opponents typically claim that, if the minimum wage goes up, the sky
will fall--small businesses will collapse and jobs will be lost. This
hasn't happened in the past, and it won't happen in the future. In
fact, in the time that has passed since the most recent increases in
the federal minimum wage--a 50-cent increase on October 1, 1996 and a
40-cent increase on September 1, 1997--employment has increased in all
sectors of the population.
The American people understand that you can't raise a family on $5.15
an hour. This issue is of vital importance to working families across
the country. In the past election, for example, by a margin of 2 to 1,
voters in the State of Washington approved a ballot initiative to
increase the state minimum wage to $6.50 an hour. In many other states,
raising the minimum wage was a potent issue in the election.
The minimum wage is a women's issue. It is a children's issue. It is
a civil rights issue. It is a labor issue. It is a family issue. Above
all, it is a fairness issue and a dignity issue. I intend to do all I
can to see that the minimum wage is increased this year. No one who
works for a living should have to live in poverty.
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. 192

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 ``Fair Minimum Wage Act of
1999''.

SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE.

(a) Wage.--Paragraph (1) of section 6(a) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not
less than--
``(A) $5.65 an hour during the year beginning on September
1, 1999; and
``(B) $6.15 an hour beginning on September 1, 2000;''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
takes effect on September 1, 1999.

SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF MINIMUM WAGE TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF
THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.

The provisions of section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206) shall apply to the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join a number of my colleagues in
introducing legislation to increase the minimum wage. There is no
better way to reward work than by ensuring each and every worker be
paid a living wage.
During the past three decades, the purchasing power of the minimum
wage has declined by 30 percent. Even after the modest minimum wage
increase in 1996, a person working full-time for the minimum wage earns
only $10,712 a year, nearly $3,000 below the poverty level for a family
of three. That paycheck must pay for food, housing, health care, child
care, and transportation. It is time to reward working families with
living wages.
The legislation we are proposing would provide a modest 50-cent per
hour increase this year, with an additional 50-cent increase in 2000,
bringing the wage level to $6.15 per hour.
More than 10 million people would be helped by a raise in the minimum
wage--an increase of more than $2,000 per year for a full-time worker.
To put things in context, nearly three quarters of minimum wage earners
are adults and 40 percent are the sole breadwinners for their families.
Sixty percent of minimum wage workers are women, and 82 percent of all
minimum wage earners work more than 20 hours per week.
Since the last minimum wage increase, our nation's economy has
continued to grow steadily. In my home State of Connecticut, members of
the State legislature saw the wisdom of increasing the minimum wage,
and last year enacted a two-step minimum wage increase. The current
level is now $5.65, and effective January 1, 2000, the wage will again
increase to $6.15 an hour. Connecticut's unemployment rate is 3.8
percent and almost 60,000 new jobs were created in the last two years.
The State is close to recovering nearly all of the 156,000 jobs lost
during the recession that hit in the early 1990's.
I hope that Congress will follow Connecticut's lead and pass a
similar law before the year is through. Congress should take a stand
for millions of working Americans and raise the minimum wage.
______

By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 193. A bill to apply the same quality and safety standards to
domestically manufactured handguns that are currently applied to
imported handguns; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

american handgun standards act of 1999

______

By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 194. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
the first $2,000 of health insurance premiums to be fully deductible;
to the Committee on Finance.

health insurance tax relief act

______

By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 195. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
permanently

[[Page 942]]

extend the research credit; to the Committee on Finance.

research and experimentation tax credit

______

By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 196. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to waive in
the case of multiemployer plans the section 415 limit on benefits to
the participant's average compensation for his high 3 years; to the
Committee on Finance.

pension improvement legislation

______

By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 197. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to
direct the Secretary of the Interior to cease mineral leasing activity
on the outer Continental Shelf seaward of a coastal State that has
declared a moratorium on mineral exploration, development, or
production activity in State water; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.

coastal states protection act

______

By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 198. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
the training of health professions students with respect to the
identification and referral of victims of domestic violence; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

domestic violence identification and referral act of 1999

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce several
important bills that I hope the Senate will consider early in the 106th
Congress.
The first bill is the American Handgun Standards Act. This
legislation would require that handguns made in the United States meet
the same standards currently required of imported handguns. This
legislation would halt the sale and manufacture of new ``junk guns,''
which have been found by criminologists to be disproportionately used
in crimes.
The next bill is the Health Insurance Tax Deduction. This important
legislation would make the costs of health insurance tax deductible for
individuals who purchase their own health coverage--up to a maximum of
$2,000 per year. Currently health care costs are only deductible for
corporations and the self-employed. Current law clearly discriminates
against individuals and should be changed.
Also included is legislation to make the Research and Experimentation
Tax Credit permanent. Virtually all economists agree that the R&E Tax
Credit is a valuable incentive that encourages high-tech companies to
develop innovative products. In the past, however, the credit has been
enacted intermittently and only for very limited periods of time. The
on-again, off-again nature of the R&E Tax Credit makes it very
difficult for companies to plan long-term research projects. It should
be made permanent.
The next bill would improve our pension system by exempting multi-
employer plans from the annual income limits of Section 415 of the
Internal Revenue Code. Current law sets pension compensation based on
three consecutive years of pay. However, for workers whose income
fluctuates from year-to-year, this requirement may lower annual
benefits. To ensure fairness for these workers, multi-employer plans
should be exempted from Section 415.
Next is the Coastal States Protection Act, which will provide
necessary protection for the nation's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
from the adverse effects of offshore oil and gas development by making
management of the federal OCS consistent with state-mandated protection
of state waters. Simply put, my bill says that when a state establishes
a drilling moratorium on part or all of its coastal waters, that
protection would be extended to adjacent federal waters.
The final bill is the Domestic Violence Identification and Referral
Act, which would help ensure that medical professionals have the
training they need to recognize and treat domestic violence, including
spouse abuse, child abuse, and elder abuse. The bill will amend the
Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to give preference in awarding grants to institutions that
train health professionals in identifying, treating, and referring
patients who are victims of domestic violence to appropriate services.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 193

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 ``American Handgun Standards
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited the importation
of handguns that failed to meet minimum quality and safety
standards;
(2) the Gun Control Act of 1968 did not impose any quality
and safety standards on domestically produced handguns;
(3) domestically produced handguns are specifically
exempted from oversight by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission and are not required to meet any quality and
safety standards;
(4) each year--
(A) gunshots kill more than 35,000 Americans and wound
approximately 250,000;
(B) approximately 75,000 Americans are hospitalized for the
treatment of gunshot wounds;
(C) Americans spend more than $20 billion for the medical
treatment of gunshot wounds; and
(D) gun violence costs the United States economy a total of
$135 billion;
(5) the disparate treatment of imported handguns and
domestically produced handguns has led to the creation of a
high-volume market for junk guns, defined as those handguns
that fail to meet the quality and safety standards required
of imported handguns;
(6) traffic in junk guns constitutes a serious threat to
public welfare and to law enforcement officers;
(7) junk guns are used disproportionately in the commission
of crimes; and
(8) the domestic manufacture, transfer, and possession of
junk guns should be restricted.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF JUNK GUN.

Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(35) The term `junk gun' means any handgun that does not
meet the standard imposed on imported handguns as described
in section 925(d)(3), and any regulations issued under such
section.''.

SEC. 4. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION
OF CERTAIN HANDGUNS.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after subsection (y) the following:
``(z)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for
a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a junk gun that
has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign
commerce.
``(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
``(A) the possession or transfer of a junk gun otherwise
lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the
enactment of the American Handgun Standards Act of 1999;
``(B) a firearm or replica of a firearm that has been
rendered permanently inoperative;
``(C)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession
by, the United States or a State or a department or agency of
the United States, or a State of a department, agency, or
political subdivision of a State, of a junk gun; or
``(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement
officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a
junk gun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off-
duty);
``(D) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police
officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or
commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of
a junk gun for the purposes of law enforcement (whether on or
off-duty); or
``(E) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a junk
gun by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the
purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the
Secretary.''.
____

S. 194

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 ``Health Insurance Tax Relief
Act''.

SEC. 2. FIRST $2,000 OF HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS FULLY
DEDUCTIBLE.

(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 213 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to medical, dental,
etc., expenses) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--There shall be allowed as a
deduction the following amounts not compensated for by
insurance or otherwise--

[[Page 943]]

``(1) the amount by which the amount of expenses paid
during the taxable year (reduced by the amount deductible
under paragraph (2)) for medical care of the taxpayer, the
taxpayer's spouse, and the taxpayer's dependents (as defined
in section 152) exceeds 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income,
plus
``(2) so much of the expenses paid during the taxable year
for insurance which constitutes medical care under subsection
(d)(1)(D) (other than for a qualified long-term care
insurance contract) for such taxpayer, spouse, and dependents
as does not exceed $2,000.''
(b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Taxpayer Itemizes
Deduction.--Section 62(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (defining adjusted gross income) is amended by inserting
after paragraph (17) the following new paragraph:
``(18) Health insurance premiums.--The deduction allowed by
section 213(a)(2).''
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 162(l)(1)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rules for
health insurance costs of self-employed individuals) is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--In the case of an individual who is an
employee within the meaning of section 401(c)(1), there shall
be allowed as a deduction under this section an amount equal
to the sum of--
``(i) so much of the amount paid during the taxable year
for insurance which constitutes medical care for the
taxpayer, his spouse, and dependents as does not exceed
$2,000, plus
``(ii) the applicable percentage of the amount so paid in
excess of $2,000.''
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1999.
____

S. 195

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to credit for increasing research activities)
is amended by striking subsection (h).
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 45C(b)
of such Code is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after June 30, 1999.
____

S. 196

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF MULTIEMPLOYER PLANS UNDER SECTION 415
LIMIT ON BENEFITS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (11) of section 415(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special limitation
rule for governmental plans) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by inserting ``and multiemployer
plans'' after ``governmental plans''; and
(2) by inserting ``or a multiemployer plan (as defined in
section 414(f))'' after ``governmental plan (as defined in
section 414(d))''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 1999.
____

S. 197

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 ``Coastal States Protection
Act''.

SEC. 2. STATE MORATORIA ON OFFSHORE MINERAL LEASING.

Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(p) State Moratoria.--When there is in effect with
respect to land beneath navigable water (as defined in
section 2 of the Submerged Lands Act (16 U.S.C. 1301)) of a
coastal State a moratorium on oil, gas, or other mineral
exploration, development, or production activity established
by statute or by order of the Governor, the Secretary shall
not issue a lease for the exploration, development, or
production of minerals on the outer Continental Shelf that is
seaward of or adjacent to that land.''.
____

S. 198

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 ``Domestic Violence
Identification and Referral Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT, FOR CERTAIN HEALTH PROFESSIONS
PROGRAMS, OF PROVISIONS REGARDING DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE.

(a) Title VII Programs; Preferences in Financial Awards.--
Section 791 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295j)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Preferences Regarding Training in Identification and
Referral of Victims of Domestic Violence.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a health professions
entity specified in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, in
making awards of grants or contracts under this title, give
preference to any such entity (if otherwise a qualified
applicant for the award involved) that has in effect the
requirement that, as a condition of receiving a degree or
certificate (as applicable) from the entity, each student
have had significant training in carrying out the following
functions as a provider of health care:
``(A) Identifying victims of domestic violence, and
maintaining complete medical records that include
documentation of the examination, treatment given, and
referrals made, and recording the location and nature of the
victim's injuries.
``(B) Examining and treating such victims, within the scope
of the health professional's discipline, training, and
practice, including, at a minimum, providing medical advice
regarding the dynamics and nature of domestic violence.
``(C) Referring the victims to public and nonprofit private
entities that provide services for such victims.
``(2) Relevant health professions entities.--For purposes
of paragraph (1), a health professions entity specified in
this paragraph is any entity that is a school of medicine, a
school of osteopathic medicine, a graduate program in mental
health practice, a school of nursing (as defined in section
853), a program for the training of physician assistants, or
a program for the training of allied health professionals.
``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of the Domestic Violence Identification
and Referral Act of 1999, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, and
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate, a
report specifying the health professions entities that are
receiving preference under paragraph (1); the number of hours
of training required by the entities for purposes of such
paragraph; the extent of clinical experience so required; and
the types of courses through which the training is being
provided.
``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `domestic violence' includes behavior commonly referred
to as domestic violence, sexual assault, spousal abuse, woman
battering, partner abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, and
acquaintance rape.''.
(b) Title VIII Programs; Preferences in Financial Awards.--
Section 806 of the Public Health Service Act is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(i) Preferences Regarding Training in Identification and
Referral of Victims of Domestic Violence.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a health professions
entity specified in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, in
making awards of grants or contracts under this title, give
preference to any such entity (if otherwise a qualified
applicant for the award involved) that has in effect the
requirement that, as a condition of receiving a degree or
certificate (as applicable) from the entity, each student
have had significant training in carrying out the following
functions as a provider of health care:
``(A) Identifying victims of domestic violence, and
maintaining complete medical records that include
documentation of the examination, treatment given, and
referrals made, and recording the location and nature of the
victim's injuries.
``(B) Examining and treating such victims, within the scope
of the health professional's discipline, training, and
practice, including, at a minimum, providing medical advice
regarding the dynamics and nature of domestic violence.
``(C) Referring the victims to public and nonprofit private
entities that provide services for such victims.
``(2) Relevant health professions entities.--For purposes
of paragraph (1), a health professions entity specified in
this paragraph is any entity that is a school of nursing or
other public or nonprofit private entity that is eligible to
receive an award described in such paragraph.
``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of the Domestic Violence Identification
and Referral Act of 1999, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, and
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate, a
report specifying the health professions entities that are
receiving preference under paragraph (1); the number of hours
of training required by the entities for purposes of such
paragraph; the extent of clinical experience so required; and
the types of courses through which the training is being
provided.
``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `domestic violence' includes behavior commonly referred
to as domestic violence, sexual assault, spousal abuse, woman
battering, partner abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, and
acquaintance rape.''.
______

By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
S. 199. A bill for the relief of Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko,
and their son, Vladimir Malofienko; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

[[Page 944]]

private relief bill

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will help my constituent Vova Malofienko, and his parents, to live
a healthy and productive life in the United States.
Tragically, Vova was a victim of the Chernobyl reactor explosion. He
has battled Leukemia his whole life. Since his arrival in the United
States for cancer treatment in 1992, he and his parents have sought to
remain here because the air, food, and water in the Ukraine are still
contaminated with radiation and are perilous to those like Vova who
have a weakened immune system. Additionally, cancer treatment available
in the Ukraine is not as sophisticated as medical care available in the
United States.
Although Vova's cancer has gone into remission because of the
excellent health care he has received, the seven other children who
came to the United States with Vova were not as fortunate. They
returned to the Ukraine and they died, one by one, because of
inadequate cancer treatment. Not one child survived.
Because of his perilous medical condition, Vova and his family have
done everything possible to remain in the United States. Since 1992,
they have obtained a number of visa extensions, and I have helped them
with their efforts. In March of 1997, the last time the Malofienkos'
visas were expiring, I appealed to the INS and the family was given
what I was told would be final one-year extension.
Across the country, people have rallied in support of Vova's cause.
The Children of Chernobyl Relief Fund, national Ukrainian and religious
organizations, and Vova's classmates at Millburn Middle School have all
worked to help the Malofienkos.
During the last session of Congress, I introduced legislation to help
Vova and his family. With the help of Senators Abraham, Hatch, and
Daschle, the Senate passed the bill unanimously. However, the House
failed to pass it before the end of the last session.
I hope that my Senate colleagues will help move this legislation
forward expeditiously. We must give Vova and his family a chance to
live their lives in peace.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 199

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.),
Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir
Malofienko, shall be held and considered to have been
lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent
residence as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon
payment of the required visa fees.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

Upon the granting of permanent residence to Alexandre
Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir Malofienko,
as provided in section 1, the Secretary of State shall
instruct the proper officer to reduce by the appropriate
number during the current fiscal year the total number of
immigrant visas available to natives of the country of the
aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
______

By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
S. 200. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase
the years for carryback of net operating losses for certain farm
losses; to the Committee on Finance.

net operating losses for farmers

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation for
myself and Senator Johnson providing farmers with the option of
receiving a refund from taxes paid in the past 10 years for their
current operating losses.
I was pleased to see a net operating loss provision included in the
Omnibus Appropriations measure allowing farmers to carry back their
losses for 5 years. But, a five year period is insufficient given the
economic reality in Agriculture.
Farmers are suffering huge losses through no fault of their own. No
other business has less control of the price they can receive for what
they produce. Farmers cannot control the world's weather or the World
economy. But, those factors determine the price of corn, soybeans and
wheat. The Freedom to Farm bill passed in 1997 sharply reduced the
farmer's safety net. Farm prices have crashed to levels not seen in
decades. Many farmers are going to have a very difficult time being
able to acquire the funds needed to plant their crops in the coming
year or maintain their annual operations. Grain farmers received some
assistance in the Omnibus Appropriations measure. But, it was not
sufficient. Livestock producers received very limited help in that
measure. And, in the last few months we have seen hog prices drop to
levels that were, adjusted for inflation, far lower than anything seen
at the worst point of the Great Depression. Many farmers could lose the
farms that have been in their families for generations. Those low
prices and the resulting sharp reduction in hog producers' financial
resources is changing the whole structure of hog production. Cattle
prices also have been significantly below the cost of production for
over a year. And, the economic difficulty is far broader. It is already
having a terrible ripple effect on the economies of rural areas.
Layoffs have been occurring at agricultural equipment manufacturers and
in stores of all kinds in small towns across the country. We are just
at the beginning stages of what could become a very severe downturn in
rural America.
A number of Senators and I are proposing a series of modifications in
agicultural programs to help alleviate these programs. But, I believe
the Congress needs to also pass a provision broadening existing law
allowing farmers to recover taxes paid in the past to cover their net
operating losses for 10 years.
I propose that the option to carry losses back for 10 years only
apply to family farmers. That would include those with gross sales of
less than $7 million and the losses covered would be up to $200,000 per
year in operating losses. The benefit would only go to farmers whose
families are actively engaged in farming and whose business activity is
mostly farming. The amount of the rebate would be dependent on the
amount of the loss and the tax rate paid by the farmer for the paid
taxes that are being restored.
The 10 year provision would only cover losses occurring in 1998 to
1999. For losses occuring in 1998, farmers would be able to calculate
their loss now and seek an immediate rebate from the IRS for the taxes
paid in earlier years.
Current law already allows a few taxpayers in certain circumstances
to go back and recover taxes that they paid for 10 years. I believe
that it should be broadened to cover farmers in this difficult time. In
fact, there is a precedent in the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act in which
Amtrak was allowed to use net operating losses of their predecessor
railroads from over 25 years in the past.
I urge that when the Congress considers a tax bill, this provision be
considered and passed.
______

By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Murray,
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Boxer, and
Mr. Wellstone):
S. 201. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to
apply the Act to a greater percentage of the United States workforce,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.

the family and medical leave fairness act of 1999

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, six years ago, I came to the floor of the
U.S. Senate to introduce the Family and Medical Leave Act. That
introduction and the signing of the bill into law a few weeks later by
President Clinton was the culmination of an eight-year struggle to make
job-protected leave accessible for working Americans, in times of
family or medical emergency.
Today, at a time when many Americans are deeply cynical toward the

[[Page 945]]

work we do here in Washington, the Family and Medical Leave Act stands
in sharp contrast.
It responded to a deep and genuine need among American Families. Over
the last six years, I have heard from many working Americans about what
this law has meant to them. But no story captures the impact of our
work better than the one expectant mother I heard from who kept a copy
of the Family and Medical Leave Act in her bedside table. She had a
difficult pregnancy and was often on doctor-ordered bed rest; she said
she kept the FMLA nearby and read it as reassurance that she wouldn't
lose her job or her health insurance.
The Family and Medical Leave Act has been a lifeline for tens of
millions of families as they have responded at those key moments that
define a family--when there is a new child or when serious illness
strikes. With the FMLA, working Americans can take 12 weeks off to cope
with these basic family needs without worry that they will lose their
jobs or their health insurance.
Yet, even with the success of the FMLA there is still more work to be
done.
Millions of Americans are not covered by the Family and Medical Leave
Act and continue to face painful choices involving their competing
responsibilities to family and work.
In fact, over one-quarter of working Americans needed to take family
and medical leave in 1998 but were unable to do so. Forty-four percent
of these Americans did not take the leave they needed because they
would have lost their jobs or their employers do not allow it.
Today, forty-three percent of private sector employees remain
unprotected by the FMLA because their employer does not meet the
current 50 or more employee threshold.
The legislation I introduce today--the Family and Medical Leave
Fairness Act of 1999--will extend the Family and Medical Leave Act to
millions of Americans who remain uncovered. I am pleased to be joined
in this effort by Senators Daschle, Kennedy, Murray, Mikulski, Harkin,
Kerry, Akaka, and Boxer.
This bill would lower the threshold to include coverage for companies
with 25 or more workers.
This small step would provide 13 million additional workers with
protection of the Family and Medical Leave Act--raising the total
percentage of the private sector workforce covered by the FMLA to 71
percent.
In my view, these workers deserve the same job security in times of
family and medical emergency that workers in larger companies receive
from the Family and Medical Leave Act.
With this legislation they will receive it.
Now, for those of my colleagues who still harbor doubts about the
success of the Family and Medical Leave Act, I strongly urge them to
examine the bipartisan Commission of Leave report and other studies
that documents the positive impact of this legislation.
When the bill was passed in 1993, provisions in the legislation
established a commission to examine the impact of the act on workers
and businesses.
The Family and Medical Leave Commission's analysis spanned two and a
half years. It included independent research and field hearings across
the country to learn first hand about the act's impact from individuals
and the business community.
The report's conclusions are clear--the Family and Medical Leave Act
is helping to expand opportunities for working Americans while at the
same time not placing any undue burden on employers.
According to the Commission's final report, the Family and Medical
Leave Act represents ``A significant step in helping a larger cross-
section of working Americans meet their medical and family care giving
needs while still maintaining their jobs and economic security.''
Due to this legislation, Americans now possess greater opportunities
to keep their health benefits, maintain job security, and take longer
leaves for a greater number of reasons.
In fact, according to the bipartisan Commission--12 million workers
took job-protected leave for reasons covered by the Family and Medical
Leave Act during the 18 months of its study.
Not only are American workers reaping the benefits. The law is
working for American business as well.
The conclusions of the bipartisan report are a far cry from the
concerns that were voiced when this law was being considered in
Congress.
The vast majority of businesses--over 94%--report little to no
additional costs associated with the Family and Medical Leave Act. More
than 92% reported no noticeable effect on profitability. And nearly 96%
reported no noticeable effect on business growth. Additionally, 83% of
employers reported no noticeable impact on employee productivity. In
fact, 12.6% actually reported a positive effect on employee
productivity from the Family and Medical Leave Act, twice as many as
reported a negative effect.
And not only did employers report that compliance with the FMLA was
relatively easy and of minimal cost, but work sites with a small number
of employees generally reported greater ease of administration and even
smaller costs than large work sites.
Today, I introduce this legislation with the hope and expectation
that we can put aside our political differences and build on the
success of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Last November, the American people gave us mandate--a mandate for
good governance. The Family and Medical Leave Act represents the
fulfillment of this goal and I urge all my colleagues to join with me
in supporting this critically important legislation for America's
working families.
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. 201

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 cited as the ``Family and Medical Leave
Fairness Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C.
2601 et seq.) has provided employees with a significant new
tool in balancing the needs of their families with the
demands of work;
(2) the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 has had a
minimal impact on business, and over 90 percent of private
employers covered by the Act experienced little or no cost
and a minimal, or positive, impact on productivity as a
result of the Act;
(3) although both employers at workplaces with large
numbers of employees and employers at workplaces with small
numbers of employees reported that compliance with the Family
and Medical Leave Act of 1993 involved very easy
administration and low costs, the smaller employers found it
easier and less expensive to comply with the Act than the
larger employers;
(4) over three-quarters of worksites with under 50
employees covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
report no cost increases or small cost increases associated
with compliance with the Act;
(5) in 1998, 27 percent of Americans needed to take family
or medical leave but were unable to do so, and 44 percent of
these employees did not take such leave because they would
have lost their jobs or their employers did not allow it;
(6) only 57 percent of the private workforce is currently
protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; and
(7) 13,000,000 more private employees, or an additional 14
percent of the private workforce, would be protected by the
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 if the Act was expanded
to cover private employers with 25 or more employees.

SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF EMPLOYEES.

Paragraphs (2)(B)(ii) and (4)(A)(i) of section 101 of the
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C.
2611(2)(B)(ii) and (4)(A)(i)) are amended by striking ``50''
each place it appears and inserting ``25''.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Daschle):
S. 202. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act and
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve access
to health insurance and Medicare benefits for individuals ages 55 to
65, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page 946]]

THE MEDICARE EARLY ACCESS ACT OF 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today, I introduce a bill to provide
access to health insurance for individuals between the ages of 55-65.
These individuals are too young for Medicare, not poor enough to
qualify for Medicaid, and in many cases, are forced into early
retirement or pushed out of their jobs in corporate downsizing.
The ``Medicare Early Access Act'' is based on the President's three-
part initiative announced last January. The bill is a targeted proposal
to give older Americans under 65 new options to obtain health insurance
coverage. Many of these Americans have worked hard all their lives,
but, through no fault of their own, find themselves uninsured just as
they are entering the years when the risk of serious illness is
increasing. This legislation attempts to bridge the gap in coverage
between years when persons are in the labor force and the age (65) when
they become eligible for Medicare.
The bill has three parts: (1) It enables persons between ages 62 and
64 to buy into Medicare by paying a full premium; (2) It provides
displaced workers over age 55 access to Medicare by offering a similar
Medicare buy-in option; and (3) It extends COBRA coverage to persons 55
and over whose employers withdraw retiree health benefits.
The program is largely self-financing and is substantially paid for
by premiums from the beneficiaries themselves. There is a modest cost
to the buy-in proposal for 62-65-year-olds because participants would
pay the premium in two parts: most of the cost would be paid by the
individual up front and a smaller amount would be paid after they turn
65 years-old. Medicare would in effect ``loan'' participants the second
part of the premium until they reach 65, when they would make small
monthly payments in addition to their regular Medicare Part B premium.
The financing of the program is carefully walled off from the Medicare
Part A and Part B Trust Funds, to ensure that it will not adversely
impact the existing program.
In 1998, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of this bill
found no impact on the Medicare Part A or Part B Trust Funds. CBO also
predicted that about 410,000 individuals would participate (or 33
percent more than first estimated by the Administration). Finally, CBO
estimated that the post-65 premium that people ages 62-65 would pay
would be only $10 per month per year--$6 per month, or $72 less per
year, than the Administration estimated.
Mr. President, the problem of health insurance for the near elderly
is getting worse. Congress should act now to provide valuable coverage
for these individuals.
I ask unanimous consent that the summary and the full text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 202

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR INDIVIDUALS 62-TO-65 YEARS OF
AGE

Sec. 101. Access to medicare benefits for individuals 62-
to-65 years of age.

``Part D--Purchase of Medicare Benefits by Certain Individuals Age 62-
to-65 Years of Age

``Sec. 1859. Program benefits; eligibility.
``Sec. 1859A. Enrollment process; coverage.
``Sec. 1859B. Premiums.
``Sec. 1859C. Payment of premiums.
``Sec. 1859D. Medicare Early Access Trust Fund.
``Sec. 1859E. Oversight and accountability.
``Sec. 1859F. Administration and miscellaneous.''.

TITLE II--ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR DISPLACED WORKERS 55-TO-62
YEARS OF AGE

Sec. 201. Access to medicare benefits for displaced workers
55-to-62 years of age.

TITLE III--COBRA PROTECTION FOR EARLY RETIREES

Subtitle A--Amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974

Sec. 301. COBRA continuation benefits for certain retired
workers who lose retiree health coverage.

Subtitle B--Amendments to the Public Health Service Act

Sec. 311. COBRA continuation benefits for certain retired
workers who lose retiree health coverage.

Subtitle C--Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

Sec. 321. COBRA continuation benefits for certain retired
workers who lose retiree health coverage.

TITLE I--ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR INDIVIDUALS 62-TO-65 YEARS OF
AGE

SEC. 101. ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR INDIVIDUALS 62-TO-
65 YEARS OF AGE.

(a) In General.--Title XVIII of the Social Security Act is
amended--
(1) by redesignating section 1859 and part D as section
1858 and part E, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after such section the following new part:

``Part D--Purchase of Medicare Benefits by Certain Individuals Age 62-
to-65 Years of Age

``SEC. 1859. PROGRAM BENEFITS; ELIGIBILITY.

``(a) Entitlement to Medicare Benefits for Enrolled
Individuals.--
``(1) In general.--An individual enrolled under this part
is entitled to the same benefits under this title as an
individual entitled to benefits under part A and enrolled
under part B.
``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this part:
``(A) Federal or state cobra continuation provision.--The
term `Federal or State COBRA continuation provision' has the
meaning given the term `COBRA continuation provision' in
section 2791(d)(4) of the Public Health Service Act and
includes a comparable State program, as determined by the
Secretary.
``(B) Federal health insurance program defined.--The term
`Federal health insurance program' means any of the
following:
``(i) Medicare.--Part A or part B of this title (other than
by reason of this part).
``(ii) Medicaid.--A State plan under title XIX.
``(iii) FEHBP.--The Federal employees health benefit
program under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.
``(iv) TRICARE.--The TRICARE program (as defined in section
1072(7) of title 10, United States Code).
``(v) Active duty military.--Health benefits under title
10, United States Code, to an individual as a member of the
uniformed services of the United States.
``(C) Group health plan.--The term `group health plan' has
the meaning given such term in section 2791(a)(1) of the
Public Health Service Act.
``(b) Eligibility of Individuals Age 62-to-65 Years of
Age.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an individual
who meets the following requirements with respect to a month
is eligible to enroll under this part with respect to such
month:
``(A) Age.--As of the last day of the month, the individual
has attained 62 years of age, but has not attained 65 years
of age.
``(B) Medicare eligibility (but for age).--The individual
would be eligible for benefits under part A or part B for the
month if the individual were 65 years of age.
``(C) Not eligible for coverage under group health plans or
federal health insurance programs.--The individual is not
eligible for benefits or coverage under a Federal health
insurance program (as defined in subsection (a)(2)(B)) or
under a group health plan (other than such eligibility merely
through a Federal or State COBRA continuation provision) as
of the last day of the month involved.
``(2) Limitation on eligibility if terminated enrollment.--
If an individual described in paragraph (1) enrolls under
this part and coverage of the individual is terminated under
section 1859A(d) (other than because of age), the individual
is not again eligible to enroll under this subsection unless
the following requirements are met:
``(A) New coverage under group health plan or federal
health insurance program.--After the date of termination of
coverage under such section, the individual obtains coverage
under a group health plan or under a Federal health insurance
program.
``(B) Subsequent loss of new coverage.--The individual
subsequently loses eligibility for the coverage described in
subparagraph (A) and exhausts any eligibility the individual
may subsequently have for coverage under a Federal or State
COBRA continuation provision.
``(3) Change in health plan eligibility does not affect
coverage.--In the case of an individual who is eligible for
and enrolls under this part under this subsection, the
individual's continued entitlement to benefits under this
part shall not be affected by the individual's subsequent
eligibility for benefits or coverage described in paragraph
(1)(C), or entitlement to such benefits or coverage.

``SEC. 1859A. ENROLLMENT PROCESS; COVERAGE.

``(a) In General.--An individual may enroll in the program
established under this

[[Page 947]]

part only in such manner and form as may be prescribed by
regulations, and only during an enrollment period prescribed
by the Secretary consistent with the provisions of this
section. Such regulations shall provide a process under
which--
``(1) individuals eligible to enroll as of a month are
permitted to pre-enroll during a prior month within an
enrollment period described in subsection (b); and
``(2) each individual seeking to enroll under section
1859(b) is notified, before enrolling, of the deferred
monthly premium amount the individual will be liable for
under section 1859C(b) upon attaining 65 years of age as
determined under section 1859B(c)(3).
``(b) Enrollment Periods.--
``(1) Individuals 62-to-65 years of age.--In the case of
individuals eligible to enroll under this part under section
1859(b)--
``(A) Initial enrollment period.--If the individual is
eligible to enroll under such section for July 2000, the
enrollment period shall begin on May 1, 2000, and shall end
on August 31, 2000. Any such enrollment before July 1, 2000,
is conditioned upon compliance with the conditions of
eligibility for July 2000.
``(B) Subsequent periods.--If the individual is eligible to
enroll under such section for a month after July 2000, the
enrollment period shall begin on the first day of the second
month before the month in which the individual first is
eligible to so enroll and shall end 4 months later. Any such
enrollment before the first day of the third month of such
enrollment period is conditioned upon compliance with the
conditions of eligibility for such third month.
``(2) Authority to correct for government errors.--The
provisions of section 1837(h) apply with respect to
enrollment under this part in the same manner as they apply
to enrollment under part B.
``(c) Date Coverage Begins.--
``(1) In general.--The period during which an individual is
entitled to benefits under this part shall begin as follows,
but in no case earlier than July 1, 2000:
``(A) In the case of an individual who enrolls (including
pre-enrolls) before the month in which the individual
satisfies eligibility for enrollment under section 1859, the
first day of such month of eligibility.
``(B) In the case of an individual who enrolls during or
after the month in which the individual first satisfies
eligibility for enrollment under such section, the first day
of the following month.
``(2) Authority to provide for partial months of
coverage.--Under regulations, the Secretary may, in the
Secretary's discretion, provide for coverage periods that
include portions of a month in order to avoid lapses of
coverage.
``(3) Limitation on payments.--No payments may be made
under this title with respect to the expenses of an
individual enrolled under this part unless such expenses were
incurred by such individual during a period which, with
respect to the individual, is a coverage period under this
section.
``(d) Termination of Coverage.--
``(1) In general.--An individual's coverage period under
this part shall continue until the individual's enrollment
has been terminated at the earliest of the following:
``(A) General provisions.--
``(i) Notice.--The individual files notice (in a form and
manner prescribed by the Secretary) that the individual no
longer wishes to participate in the insurance program under
this part.
``(ii) Nonpayment of premiums.--The individual fails to
make payment of premiums required for enrollment under this
part.
``(iii) Medicare eligibility.--The individual becomes
entitled to benefits under part A or enrolled under part B
(other than by reason of this part).
``(B) Termination based on age.--The individual attains 65
years of age.
``(2) Effective date of termination.--
``(A) Notice.--The termination of a coverage period under
paragraph (1)(A)(i) shall take effect at the close of the
month following for which the notice is filed.
``(B) Nonpayment of premium.--The termination of a coverage
period under paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall take effect on a date
determined under regulations, which may be determined so as
to provide a grace period in which overdue premiums may be
paid and coverage continued. The grace period determined
under the preceding sentence shall not exceed 60 days; except
that it may be extended for an additional 30 days in any case
where the Secretary determines that there was good cause for
failure to pay the overdue premiums within such 60-day
period.
``(C) Age or medicare eligibility.--The termination of a
coverage period under paragraph (1)(A)(iii) or (1)(B) shall
take effect as of the first day of the month in which the
individual attains 65 years of age or becomes entitled to
benefits under part A or enrolled for benefits under part B
(other than by reason of this part).

``SEC. 1859B. PREMIUMS.

``(a) Amount of Monthly Premiums.--
``(1) Base monthly premiums.--The Secretary shall, during
September of each year (beginning with 1999), determine the
following premium rates which shall apply with respect to
coverage provided under this title for any month in the
succeeding year:
``(A) Base monthly premium for individuals 62 years of age
or older.--A base monthly premium for individuals 62 years of
age or older is equal to \1/12\ of the base annual premium
rate computed under subsection (b) for each premium area.
``(B) Deferred monthly premiums for individuals 62 years of
age or older.--The Secretary shall, during September of each
year (beginning with 1999), determine under subsection (c)
the amount of deferred monthly premiums that shall apply with
respect to individuals who first obtain coverage under this
part under section 1859(b) in the succeeding year.
``(3) Establishment of premium areas.--For purposes of this
part, the term `premium area' means such an area as the
Secretary shall specify to carry out this part. The Secretary
from time to time may change the boundaries of such premium
areas. The Secretary shall seek to minimize the number of
such areas specified under this paragraph.
``(b) Base Annual Premium for Individuals 62 Years of Age
or Older.--
``(1) National, per capita average.--The Secretary shall
estimate the average, annual per capita amount that would be
payable under this title with respect to individuals residing
in the United States who meet the requirement of section
1859(b)(1)(A) as if all such individuals were eligible for
(and enrolled) under this title during the entire year (and
assuming that section 1862(b)(2)(A)(i) did not apply).
``(2) Geographic adjustment.--The Secretary shall reduce,
as determined appropriate, the amount determined under
paragraph (1) for a premium area (specified under subsection
(a)(3)) that has costs below the national average, in order
to assure participation in all areas throughout the United
States.
``(3) Base annual premium.--The base annual premium under
this subsection for months in a year for individuals 62 years
of age or older residing in a premium area is equal to the
average, annual per capita amount estimated under paragraph
(1) for the year, adjusted for such area under paragraph (2).
``(c) Deferred Premium Rate for Individuals 62 Years of Age
or Older.--The deferred premium rate for individuals with a
group of individuals who obtain coverage under section
1859(b) in a year shall be computed by the Secretary as
follows:
``(1) Estimation of national, per capita annual average
expenditures for enrollment group.--The Secretary shall
estimate the average, per capita annual amount that will be
paid under this part for individuals in such group during the
period of enrollment under section 1859(b). In making such
estimate for coverage beginning in a year before 2004, the
Secretary may base such estimate on the average, per capita
amount that would be payable if the program had been in
operation over a previous period of at least 4 years.
``(2) Difference between estimated expenditures and
estimated premiums.--Based on the characteristics of
individuals in such group, the Secretary shall estimate
during the period of coverage of the group under this part
under section 1859(b) the amount by which--
``(A) the amount estimated under paragraph (1); exceeds
``(B) the average, annual per capita amount of premiums
that will be payable for months during the year under section
1859C(a) for individuals in such group (including premiums
that would be payable if there were no terminations in
enrollment under clause (i) or (ii) of section
1859A(d)(1)(A)).
``(3) Actuarial computation of deferred monthly premium
rates.--The Secretary shall determine deferred monthly
premium rates for individuals in such group in a manner so
that--
``(A) the estimated actuarial value of such premiums
payable under section 1859C(b), is equal to
``(B) the estimated actuarial present value of the
differences described in paragraph (2).

Such rate shall be computed for each individual in the group
in a manner so that the rate is based on the number of months
between the first month of coverage based on enrollment under
section 1859(b) and the month in which the individual attains
65 years of age.
``(4) Determinants of actuarial present values.--The
actuarial present values described in paragraph (3) shall
reflect--
``(A) the estimated probabilities of survival at ages 62
through 84 for individuals enrolled during the year; and
``(B) the estimated effective average interest rates that
would be earned on investments held in the trust funds under
this title during the period in question.

``SEC. 1859C. PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS.

``(a) Payment of Base Monthly Premium.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for payment
and collection of the base monthly premium, determined under
section 1859B(a)(1) for the age (and age cohort, if
applicable) of the individual involved and the premium area
in which the individual principally resides, in the same
manner as for payment of monthly premiums under section

[[Page 948]]

1840, except that, for purposes of applying this section, any
reference in such section to the Federal Supplementary
Medical Insurance Trust Fund is deemed a reference to the
Trust Fund established under section 1859D.
``(2) Period of payment.--In the case of an individual who
participates in the program established by this title, the
base monthly premium shall be payable for the period
commencing with the first month of the individual's coverage
period and ending with the month in which the individual's
coverage under this title terminates.
``(b) Payment of Deferred Premium for Individuals Covered
After Attaining Age 62.--
``(1) Rate of payment.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of an individual who is
covered under this part for a month pursuant to an enrollment
under section 1859(b), subject to subparagraph (B), the
individual is liable for payment of a deferred premium in
each month during the period described in paragraph (2) in an
amount equal to the full deferred monthly premium rate
determined for the individual under section 1859B(c).
``(B) Special rules for those who disenroll early.--
``(i) In general.--If such an individual's enrollment under
such section is terminated under clause (i) or (ii) of
section 1859A(d)(1)(A), subject to clause (ii), the amount of
the deferred premium otherwise established under this
paragraph shall be pro-rated to reflect the number of months
of coverage under this part under such enrollment compared to
the maximum number of months of coverage that the individual
would have had if the enrollment were not so terminated.
``(ii) Rounding to 12-month minimum coverage periods.--In
applying clause (i), the number of months of coverage (if not
a multiple of 12) shall be rounded to the next highest
multiple of 12 months, except that in no case shall this
clause result in a number of months of coverage exceeding the
maximum number of months of coverage that the individual
would have had if the enrollment were not so terminated.
``(2) Period of payment.--The period described in this
paragraph for an individual is the period beginning with the
first month in which the individual has attained 65 years of
age and ending with the month before the month in which the
individual attains 85 years of age.
``(3) Collection.--In the case of an individual who is
liable for a premium under this subsection, the amount of the
premium shall be collected in the same manner as the premium
for enrollment under such part is collected under section
1840, except that any reference in such section to the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund is deemed
to be a reference to the Medicare Early Access Trust Fund
established under section 1859D.
``(c) Application of Certain Provisions.--The provisions of
section 1840 (other than subsection (h)) shall apply to
premiums collected under this section in the same manner as
they apply to premiums collected under part B, except that
any reference in such section to the Federal Supplementary
Medical Insurance Trust Fund is deemed a reference to the
Trust Fund established under section 1859D.

``SEC. 1859D. MEDICARE EARLY ACCESS TRUST FUND.

``(a) Establishment of Trust Fund.--
``(1) In general.--There is hereby created on the books of
the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as
the `Medicare Early Access Trust Fund' (in this section
referred to as the `Trust Fund'). The Trust Fund shall
consist of such gifts and bequests as may be made as provided
in section 201(i)(1) and such amounts as may be deposited in,
or appropriated to, such fund as provided in this title.
``(2) Premiums.--Premiums collected under section 1859B
shall be transferred to the Trust Fund.
``(b) Incorporation of Provisions.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), subsections
(b) through (i) of section 1841 shall apply with respect to
the Trust Fund and this title in the same manner as they
apply with respect to the Federal Supplementary Medical
Insurance Trust Fund and part B, respectively.
``(2) Miscellaneous references.--In applying provisions of
section 1841 under paragraph (1)--
``(A) any reference in such section to `this part' is
construed to refer to this part D;
``(B) any reference in section 1841(h) to section 1840(d)
and in section 1841(i) to sections 1840(b)(1) and 1842(g) are
deemed references to comparable authority exercised under
this part; and
``(C) payments may be made under section 1841(g) to the
trust funds under sections 1817 and 1841 as reimbursement to
such funds for payments they made for benefits provided under
this part.

``SEC. 1859E. OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

``(a) Through Annual Reports of Trustees.--The Board of
Trustees of the Medicare Early Access Trust Fund under
section 1859D(b)(1) shall report on an annual basis to
Congress concerning the status of the Trust Fund and the need
for adjustments in the program under this part to maintain
financial solvency of the program under this part.
``(b) Periodic GAO Reports.--The Comptroller General of the
United States shall periodically submit to Congress reports
on the adequacy of the financing of coverage provided under
this part. The Comptroller General shall include in such
report such recommendations for adjustments in such financing
and coverage as the Comptroller General deems appropriate in
order to maintain financial solvency of the program under
this part.

``SEC. 1859F. ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS.

``(a) Treatment for Purposes of this Title.--Except as
otherwise provided in this part--
``(1) an individual enrolled under this part shall be
treated for purposes of this title as though the individual
was entitled to benefits under part A and enrolled under part
B; and
``(2) benefits described in section 1859 shall be payable
under this title to such an individual in the same manner as
if such individual was so entitled and enrolled.
``(b) Not Treated as Medicare Program for Purposes of
Medicaid Program.--For purposes of applying title XIX
(including the provision of medicare cost-sharing assistance
under such title), an individual who is enrolled under this
part shall not be treated as being entitled to benefits under
this title.
``(c) Not Treated as Medicare Program for Purposes of COBRA
Continuation Provisions.--In applying a COBRA continuation
provision (as defined in section 2791(d)(4) of the Public
Health Service Act), any reference to an entitlement to
benefits under this title shall not be construed to include
entitlement to benefits under this title pursuant to the
operation of this part.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments to Social Security Act
Provisions.--
(1) Section 201(i)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
401(i)(1)) is amended by striking ``or the Federal
Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund'' and inserting
``the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, and
the Medicare Early Access Trust Fund''.
(2) Section 201(g)(1)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
401(g)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``and the Federal
Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund established by
title XVIII'' and inserting ``, the Federal Supplementary
Medical Insurance Trust Fund, and the Medicare Early Access
Trust Fund established by title XVIII''.
(3) Section 1820(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-4(i)) is
amended by striking ``part D'' and inserting ``part E''.
(4) Part C of title XVIII of such Act is amended--
(A) in section 1851(a)(2)(B) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-21(a)(2)(B)),
by striking ``1859(b)(3)'' and inserting ``1858(b)(3);
(B) in section 1851(a)(2)(C) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-21(a)(2)(C)),
by striking ``1859(b)(2)'' and inserting ``1858(b)(2)'';
(C) in section 1852(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-22(a)(1)), by
striking ``1859(b)(3)'' and inserting ``1858(b)(3);
(D) in section 1852(a)(3)(B)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
22(a)(3)(B)(ii)), by striking ``1859(b)(2)(B)'' and inserting
``1858(b)(2)(B)'';
(E) in section 1853(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(a)(1)(A)),
by striking ``1859(e)(4)'' and inserting ``1858(e)(4)''; and
(F) in section 1853(a)(3)(D) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(a)(3)(D)),
by striking ``1859(e)(4)'' and inserting ``1858(e)(4)''.
(5) Section 1853(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(c)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or (7)'' and inserting
``, (7), or (8)'', and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) Adjustment for early access.--In applying this
subsection with respect to individuals entitled to benefits
under part D, the Secretary shall provide for an appropriate
adjustment in the Medicare+Choice capitation rate as may be
appropriate to reflect differences between the population
served under such part and the population under parts A and
B.''.
(c) Other Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 138(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
is amended by striking ``1859(b)(3)'' and inserting
``1858(b)(3)''.
(2)(A) Section 602(2)(D)(ii) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1162(2)) is amended by
inserting ``(not including an individual who is so entitled
pursuant to enrollment under section 1859A)'' after ``Social
Security Act''.
(B) Section 2202(2)(D)(ii) of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 300bb-2(2)(D)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``(not
including an individual who is so entitled pursuant to
enrollment under section 1859A)'' after ``Social Security
Act''.
(C) Section 4980B(f)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``(not including an
individual who is so entitled pursuant to enrollment under
section 1859A)'' after ``Social Security Act''.

TITLE II--ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR DISPLACED WORKERS 55-TO-62
YEARS OF AGE

SEC. 201. ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR DISPLACED WORKERS
55-TO-62 YEARS OF AGE.

(a) Eligibility.--Section 1859 of the Social Security Act,
as inserted by section 101(a)(2), is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:

[[Page 949]]

``(c) Displaced Workers and Spouses.--
``(1) Displaced workers.--Subject to paragraph (3), an
individual who meets the following requirements with respect
to a month is eligible to enroll under this part with respect
to such month:
``(A) Age.--As of the last day of the month, the individual
has attained 55 years of age, but has not attained 62 years
of age.
``(B) Medicare eligibility (but for age).--The individual
would be eligible for benefits under part A or B for the
month if the individual were 65 years of age.
``(C) Loss of employment-based coverage.--
``(i) Eligible for unemployment compensation.--The
individual meets the requirements relating to period of
covered employment and conditions of separation from
employment to be eligible for unemployment compensation (as
defined in section 85(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986), based on a separation from employment occurring on or
after January 1, 1999. The previous sentence shall not be
construed as requiring the individual to be receiving such
unemployment compensation.
``(ii) Loss of employment-based coverage.--Immediately
before the time of such separation of employment, the
individual was covered under a group health plan on the basis
of such employment, and, because of such loss, is no longer
eligible for coverage under such plan (including such
eligibility based on the application of a Federal or State
COBRA continuation provision) as of the last day of the month
involved.
``(iii) Previous creditable coverage for at least 1 year.--
As of the date on which the individual loses coverage
described in clause (ii), the aggregate of the periods of
creditable coverage (as determined under section 2701(c) of
the Public Health Service Act) is 12 months or longer.
``(D) Exhaustion of available cobra continuation
benefits.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of an individual described
in clause (ii) for a month described in clause (iii)--

``(I) the individual (or spouse) elected coverage described
in clause (ii); and
``(II) the individual (or spouse) has continued such
coverage for all months described in clause (iii) in which
the individual (or spouse) is eligible for such coverage.

``(ii) Individuals to whom cobra continuation coverage made
available.--An individual described in this clause is an
individual--

``(I) who was offered coverage under a Federal or State
COBRA continuation provision at the time of loss of coverage
eligibility described in subparagraph (C)(ii); or
``(II) whose spouse was offered such coverage in a manner
that permitted coverage of the individual at such time.

``(iii) Months of possible cobra continuation coverage.--A
month described in this clause is a month for which an
individual described in clause (ii) could have had coverage
described in such clause as of the last day of the month if
the individual (or the spouse of the individual, as the case
may be) had elected such coverage on a timely basis.
``(E) Not eligible for coverage under federal health
insurance program or group health plans.--The individual is
not eligible for benefits or coverage under a Federal health
insurance program or under a group health plan (whether on
the basis of the individual's employment or employment of the
individual's spouse) as of the last day of the month
involved.
``(2) Spouse of displaced worker.--Subject to paragraph
(3), an individual who meets the following requirements with
respect to a month is eligible to enroll under this part with
respect to such month:
``(A) Age.--As of the last day of the month, the individual
has not attained 62 years of age.
``(B) Married to displaced worker.--The individual is the
spouse of an individual at the time the individual enrolls
under this part under paragraph (1) and loses coverage
described in paragraph (1)(C)(ii) because the individual's
spouse lost such coverage.
``(C) Medicare eligibility (but for age); exhaustion of any
cobra continuation coverage; and not eligible for coverage
under federal health insurance program or group health
plan.--The individual meets the requirements of subparagraphs
(B), (D), and (E) of paragraph (1).
``(3) Change in health plan eligibility affects continued
eligibility.--For provision that terminates enrollment under
this section in the case of an individual who becomes
eligible for coverage under a group health plan or under a
Federal health insurance program, see section 1859A(d)(1)(C).
``(4) Reenrollment permitted.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed as preventing an individual who, after
enrolling under this subsection, terminates such enrollment
from subsequently reenrolling under this subsection if the
individual is eligible to enroll under this subsection at
that time.''.
(b) Enrollment.--Section 1859A of such Act, as so inserted,
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``and'' at the end of
paragraph (1), by striking the period at the end of paragraph
(2) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(3) individuals whose coverage under this part would
terminate because of subsection (d)(1)(B)(ii) are provided
notice and an opportunity to continue enrollment in
accordance with section 1859E(c)(1).'';
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting after Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, (1) the following:
``(2) Displaced workers and spouses.--In the case of
individuals eligible to enroll under this part under section
1859(c), the following rules apply:
``(A) Initial enrollment period.--If the individual is
first eligible to enroll under such section for July 2000,
the enrollment period shall begin on May 1, 2000, and shall
end on August 31, 2000. Any such enrollment before July 1,
2000, is conditioned upon compliance with the conditions of
eligibility for July 2000.
``(B) Subsequent periods.--If the individual is eligible to
enroll under such section for a month after July 2000, the
enrollment period based on such eligibility shall begin on
the first day of the second month before the month in which
the individual first is eligible to so enroll (or reenroll)
and shall end 4 months later.'';
(3) in subsection (d)(1), by amending subparagraph (B) to
read as follows:
``(B) Termination based on age.--
``(i) At age 65.--Subject to clause (ii), the individual
attains 65 years of age.
``(ii) At age 62 for displaced workers and spouses.--In the
case of an individual enrolled under this part pursuant to
section 1859(c), subject to subsection (a)(1), the individual
attains 62 years of age.'';
(4) in subsection (d)(1), by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(C) Obtaining access to employment-based coverage or
federal health insurance program for individuals under 62
years of age.--In the case of an individual who has not
attained 62 years of age, the individual is covered (or
eligible for coverage) as a participant or beneficiary under
a group health plan or under a Federal health insurance
program.'';
(5) in subsection (d)(2), by amending subparagraph (C) to
read as follows:
``(C) Age or medicare eligibility.--
``(i) In general.--The termination of a coverage period
under paragraph (1)(A)(iii) or (1)(B)(i) shall take effect as
of the first day of the month in which the individual attains
65 years of age or becomes entitled to benefits under part A
or enrolled for benefits under part B.
``(ii) Displaced workers.--The termination of a coverage
period under paragraph (1)(B)(ii) shall take effect as of the
first day of the month in which the individual attains 62
years of age, unless the individual has enrolled under this
part pursuant to section 1859(b) and section 1859E(c)(1).'';
and
(6) in subsection (d)(2), by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(D) Access to coverage.--The termination of a coverage
period under paragraph (1)(C) shall take effect on the date
on which the individual is eligible to begin a period of
creditable coverage (as defined in section 2701(c) of the
Public Health Service Act) under a group health plan or under
a Federal health insurance program.''.
(c) Premiums.--Section 1859B of such Act, as so inserted,
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by adding at the end the
following:
``(B) Base monthly premium for individuals under 62 years
of age.--A base monthly premium for individuals under 62
years of age, equal to \1/12\ of the base annual premium rate
computed under subsection (d)(3) for each premium area and
age cohort.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Base Monthly Premium for Individuals Under 62 Years
of Age.--
``(1) National, per capita average for age groups.--
``(A) Estimate of amount.--The Secretary shall estimate the
average, annual per capita amount that would be payable under
this title with respect to individuals residing in the United
States who meet the requirement of section 1859(c)(1)(A)
within each of the age cohorts established under subparagraph
(B) as if all such individuals within such cohort were
eligible for (and enrolled) under this title during the
entire year (and assuming that section 1862(b)(2)(A)(i) did
not apply).
``(B) Age cohorts.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall establish separate age cohorts in 5-year age
increments for individuals who have not attained 60 years of
age and a separate cohort for individuals who have attained
60 years of age.
``(2) Geographic adjustment.--The Secretary shall adjust
the amount determined under paragraph (1)(A) for each premium
area (specified under subsection (a)(3)) in the same manner
and to the same extent as the Secretary provides for
adjustments under subsection (b)(2).
``(3) Base annual premium.--The base annual premium under
this subsection for months in a year for individuals in an
age cohort under paragraph (1)(B) in a premium area is equal
to 165 percent of the average, annual per capita amount
estimated under paragraph (1) for the age cohort and year,
adjusted for such area under paragraph (2).
``(4) Pro-ration of premiums to reflect coverage during a
part of a month.--If the Secretary provides for coverage of
portions

[[Page 950]]

of a month under section 1859A(c)(2), the Secretary shall
pro-rate the premiums attributable to such coverage under
this section to reflect the portion of the month so
covered.''.
(d) Administrative Provisions.--Section 1859F of such Act,
as so inserted, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Additional Administrative Provisions.--
``(1) Process for continued enrollment of displaced workers
who attain 62 years of age.--The Secretary shall provide a
process for the continuation of enrollment of individuals
whose enrollment under section 1859(c) would be terminated
upon attaining 62 years of age. Under such process such
individuals shall be provided appropriate and timely notice
before the date of such termination and of the requirement to
enroll under this part pursuant to section 1859(b) in order
to continue entitlement to benefits under this title after
attaining 62 years of age.
``(2) Arrangements with states for determinations relating
to unemployment compensation eligibility.--The Secretary may
provide for appropriate arrangements with States for the
determination of whether individuals in the State meet or
would meet the requirements of section 1859(c)(1)(C)(i).''.
(e) Conforming Amendment to Heading to Part.--The heading
of part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act, as so
inserted, is amended by striking ``62'' and inserting ``55''.

TITLE III--COBRA PROTECTION FOR EARLY RETIREES

Subtitle A--Amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974

SEC. 301. COBRA CONTINUATION BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN RETIRED
WORKERS WHO LOSE RETIREE HEALTH COVERAGE.

(a) Establishment of New Qualifying Event.--
(1) In general.--Section 603 of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1163) is amended by
inserting after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph:
``(7) The termination or substantial reduction in benefits
(as defined in section 607(7)) of group health plan coverage
as a result of plan changes or termination in the case of a
covered employee who is a qualified retiree.''.
(2) Qualified retiree; qualified beneficiary; and
substantial reduction defined.--Section 607 of such Act (29
U.S.C. 1167) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``except as otherwise
provided in this paragraph,'' after ``means,''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Special rule for qualifying retirees and
dependents.--In the case of a qualifying event described in
section 603(7), the term `qualified beneficiary' means a
qualified retiree and any other individual who, on the day
before such qualifying event, is a beneficiary under the plan
on the basis of the individual's relationship to such
qualified retiree.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(6) Qualified retiree.--The term `qualified retiree'
means, with respect to a qualifying event described in
section 603(7), a covered employee who, at the time of the
event--
``(A) has attained 55 years of age; and
``(B) was receiving group health coverage under the plan by
reason of the retirement of the covered employee.
``(7) Substantial reduction.--The term `substantial
reduction'--
``(A) means, as determined under regulations of the
Secretary and with respect to a qualified beneficiary, a
reduction in the average actuarial value of benefits under
the plan (through reduction or elimination of benefits, an
increase in premiums, deductibles, copayments, and
coinsurance, or any combination thereof), since the date of
commencement of coverage of the beneficiary by reason of the
retirement of the covered employee (or, if later, January 6,
1999), in an amount equal to at least 50 percent of the total
average actuarial value of the benefits under the plan as of
such date (taking into account an appropriate adjustment to
permit comparison of values over time); and
``(B) includes an increase in premiums required to an
amount that exceeds the premium level described in the fourth
sentence of section 602(3).
(b) Duration of Coverage Through Age 65.--Section 602(2)(A)
of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1162(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or 603(7)'' after
``603(6)'';
(2) in clause (iv), by striking ``or 603(6)'' and inserting
``, 603(6), or 603(7)'';
(3) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (vi);
(4) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (iv) and by
moving such clause to immediately follow clause (iii); and
(5) by inserting after such clause (iv) the following new
clause:
``(v) Special rule for certain dependents in case of
termination or substantial reduction of retiree health
coverage.--In the case of a qualifying event described in
section 603(7), in the case of a qualified beneficiary
described in section 607(3)(D) who is not the qualified
retiree or spouse of such retiree, the later of--

``(I) the date that is 36 months after the earlier of the
date the qualified retiree becomes entitled to benefits under
title XVIII of the Social Security Act, or the date of the
death of the qualified retiree; or
``(II) the date that is 36 months after the date of the
qualifying event.''.

(c) Type of Coverage in Case of Termination or Substantial
Reduction of Retiree Health Coverage.--Section 602(1) of such
Act (29 U.S.C. 1162(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The coverage'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the coverage''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Certain retirees.--In the case of a qualifying event
described in section 603(7), in applying the first sentence
of subparagraph (A) and the fourth sentence of paragraph (3),
the coverage offered that is the most prevalent coverage
option (as determined under regulations of the Secretary)
continued under the group health plan (or, if none, under the
most prevalent other plan offered by the same plan sponsor)
shall be treated as the coverage described in such sentence,
or (at the option of the plan and qualified beneficiary) such
other coverage option as may be offered and elected by the
qualified beneficiary involved.''.
(d) Increased Level of Premiums Permitted.--Section 602(3)
of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1162(3)) is amended by adding at the
end the following new sentence: ``In the case of an
individual provided continuation coverage by reason of a
qualifying event described in section 603(7), any reference
in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph to `102 percent of the
applicable premium' is deemed a reference to `125 percent of
the applicable premium for employed individuals (and their
dependents, if applicable) for the coverage option referred
to in paragraph (1)(B)'.''.
(e) Notice.--Section 606(a) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1166) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``or (6)'' and
inserting ``(6), or (7)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:

``The notice under paragraph (4) in the case of a qualifying
event described in section 603(7) shall be provided at least
90 days before the date of the qualifying event.''.
(f) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section (other
than subsection (e)(2)) shall apply to qualifying events
occurring on or after January 6, 1999. In the case of a
qualifying event occurring on or after such date and before
the date of the enactment of this Act, such event shall be
deemed (for purposes of such amendments) to have occurred on
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Advance notice of terminations and reductions.--The
amendment made by subsection (e)(2) shall apply to qualifying
events occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act,
except that in no case shall notice be required under such
amendment before such date.

Subtitle B--Amendments to the Public Health Service Act

SEC. 311. COBRA CONTINUATION BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN RETIRED
WORKERS WHO LOSE RETIREE HEALTH COVERAGE.

(a) Establishment of New Qualifying Event.--
(1) In general.--Section 2203 of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-3) is amended by inserting after
paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
``(6) The termination or substantial reduction in benefits
(as defined in section 2208(6)) of group health plan coverage
as a result of plan changes or termination in the case of a
covered employee who is a qualified retiree.''.
(2) Qualified retiree; qualified beneficiary; and
substantial reduction defined.--Section 2208 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 300bb-8) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``except as otherwise
provided in this paragraph,'' after ``means,''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Special rule for qualifying retirees and
dependents.--In the case of a qualifying event described in
section 2203(6), the term `qualified beneficiary' means a
qualified retiree and any other individual who, on the day
before such qualifying event, is a beneficiary under the plan
on the basis of the individual's relationship to such
qualified retiree.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(5) Qualified retiree.--The term `qualified retiree'
means, with respect to a qualifying event described in
section 2203(6), a covered employee who, at the time of the
event--
``(A) has attained 55 years of age; and
``(B) was receiving group health coverage under the plan by
reason of the retirement of the covered employee.
``(6) Substantial reduction.--The term `substantial
reduction'--
``(A) means, as determined under regulations of the
Secretary of Labor and with respect to a qualified
beneficiary, a reduction in the average actuarial value of
benefits

[[Page 951]]

under the plan (through reduction or elimination of benefits,
an increase in premiums, deductibles, copayments, and
coinsurance, or any combination thereof), since the date of
commencement of coverage of the beneficiary by reason of the
retirement of the covered employee (or, if later, January 6,
1999), in an amount equal to at least 50 percent of the total
average actuarial value of the benefits under the plan as of
such date (taking into account an appropriate adjustment to
permit comparison of values over time); and
``(B) includes an increase in premiums required to an
amount that exceeds the premium level described in the fourth
sentence of section 2202(3).
(b) Duration of Coverage Through Age 65.--Section
2202(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-2(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
(2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new
clause:
``(iii) Special rule for certain dependents in case of
termination or substantial reduction of retiree health
coverage.--In the case of a qualifying event described in
section 2203(6), in the case of a qualified beneficiary
described in section 2208(3)(C) who is not the qualified
retiree or spouse of such retiree, the later of--

(c) Type of Coverage in Case of Termination or Substantial
Reduction of Retiree Health Coverage.--Section 2202(1) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-2(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The coverage'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the coverage''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Certain retirees.--In the case of a qualifying event
described in section 2203(6), in applying the first sentence
of subparagraph (A) and the fourth sentence of paragraph (3),
the coverage offered that is the most prevalent coverage
option (as determined under regulations of the Secretary of
Labor) continued under the group health plan (or, if none,
under the most prevalent other plan offered by the same plan
sponsor) shall be treated as the coverage described in such
sentence, or (at the option of the plan and qualified
beneficiary) such other coverage option as may be offered and
elected by the qualified beneficiary involved.''.
(d) Increased Level of Premiums Permitted.--Section 2202(3)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-2(3)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new sentence: ``In the case of an
individual provided continuation coverage by reason of a
qualifying event described in section 2203(6), any reference
in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph to `102 percent of the
applicable premium' is deemed a reference to `125 percent of
the applicable premium for employed individuals (and their
dependents, if applicable) for the coverage option referred
to in paragraph (1)(B)'.''.
(e) Notice.--Section 2206(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-
6(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``or (4)'' and
inserting ``(4), or (6)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:

``The notice under paragraph (4) in the case of a qualifying
event described in section 2203(6) shall be provided at least
90 days before the date of the qualifying event.''.
(f) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section (other
than subsection (e)(2)) shall apply to qualifying events
occurring on or after January 6, 1999. In the case of a
qualifying event occurring on or after such date and before
the date of the enactment of this Act, such event shall be
deemed (for purposes of such amendments) to have occurred on
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Advance notice of terminations and reductions.--The
amendment made by subsection (e)(2) shall apply to qualifying
events occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act,
except that in no case shall notice be required under such
amendment before such date.

Subtitle C--Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

SEC. 321. COBRA CONTINUATION BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN RETIRED
WORKERS WHO LOSE RETIREE HEALTH COVERAGE.

(a) Establishment of New Qualifying Event.--
(1) In general.--Section 4980B(f)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after
subparagraph (F) the following new subparagraph:
``(G) The termination or substantial reduction in benefits
(as defined in subsection (g)(6)) of group health plan
coverage as a result of plan changes or termination in the
case of a covered employee who is a qualified retiree.''.
(2) Qualified retiree; qualified beneficiary; and
substantial reduction defined.--Section 4980B(g) of such Code
is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``except as otherwise
provided in this paragraph,'' after ``means,''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Special rule for qualifying retirees and
dependents.--In the case of a qualifying event described in
subsection (f)(3)(G), the term `qualified beneficiary' means
a qualified retiree and any other individual who, on the day
before such qualifying event, is a beneficiary under the plan
on the basis of the individual's relationship to such
qualified retiree.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(5) Qualified retiree.--The term `qualified retiree'
means, with respect to a qualifying event described in
subsection (f)(3)(G), a covered employee who, at the time of
the event--
``(A) has attained 55 years of age; and
``(B) was receiving group health coverage under the plan by
reason of the retirement of the covered employee.
``(6) Substantial reduction.--The term `substantial
reduction'--
``(A) means, as determined under regulations of the
Secretary of Labor and with respect to a qualified
beneficiary, a reduction in the average actuarial value of
benefits under the plan (through reduction or elimination of
benefits, an increase in premiums, deductibles, copayments,
and coinsurance, or any combination thereof), since the date
of commencement of coverage of the beneficiary by reason of
the retirement of the covered employee (or, if later, January
6, 1999), in an amount equal to at least 50 percent of the
total average actuarial value of the benefits under the plan
as of such date (taking into account an appropriate
adjustment to permit comparison of values over time); and
``(B) includes an increase in premiums required to an
amount that exceeds the premium level described in the fourth
sentence of subsection (f)(2)(C).''.
(b) Duration of Coverage Through Age 65.--Section
4980B(f)(2)(B)(i) of such Code is amended--
(1) in subclause (II), by inserting ``or (3)(G)'' after
``(3)(F)'';
(2) in subclause (IV), by striking ``or (3)(F)'' and
inserting ``, (3)(F), or (3)(G)'';
(3) by redesignating subclause (IV) as subclause (VI);
(4) by redesignating subclause (V) as subclause (IV) and by
moving such clause to immediately follow subclause (III); and
(5) by inserting after such subclause (IV) the following
new subclause:

``(V) Special rule for certain dependents in case of
termination or substantial reduction of retiree health
coverage.--In the case of a qualifying event described in
paragraph (3)(G), in the case of a qualified beneficiary
described in subsection (g)(1)(E) who is not the qualified
retiree or spouse of such retiree, the later of--

``(a) the date that is 36 months after the earlier of the
date the qualified retiree becomes entitled to benefits under
title XVIII of the Social Security Act, or the date of the
death of the qualified retiree; or
``(b) the date that is 36 months after the date of the
qualifying event.''.
(c) Type of Coverage in Case of Termination or Substantial
Reduction of Retiree Health Coverage.--Section 4980B(f)(2)(A)
of such Code is amended--
(1) by striking ``The coverage'' and inserting the
following:
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
coverage''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Certain retirees.--In the case of a qualifying event
described in paragraph (3)(G), in applying the first sentence
of clause (i) and the fourth sentence of subparagraph (C),
the coverage offered that is the most prevalent coverage
option (as determined under regulations of the Secretary of
Labor) continued under the group health plan (or, if none,
under the most prevalent other plan offered by the same plan
sponsor) shall be treated as the coverage described in such
sentence, or (at the option of the plan and qualified
beneficiary) such other coverage option as may be offered and
elected by the qualified beneficiary involved.''.
(d) Increased Level of Premiums Permitted.--Section
4980B(f)(2)(C) of such Code is amended by adding at the end
the following new sentence: ``In the case of an individual
provided continuation coverage by reason of a qualifying
event described in paragraph (3)(G), any reference in clause
(i) of this subparagraph to `102 percent of the applicable
premium' is deemed a reference to `125 percent of the
applicable premium for employed individuals (and their
dependents, if applicable) for the coverage option referred
to in subparagraph (A)(ii)'.''.
(e) Notice.--Section 4980B(f)(6) of such Code is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D)(i), by striking ``or (F)'' and
inserting ``(F), or (G)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``The notice under subparagraph (D)(i) in the case of a
qualifying event described in paragraph (3)(G) shall be
provided at least 90 days before the date of the qualifying
event.''.
(f) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section (other
than subsection (e)(2)) shall apply to qualifying events
occurring on or after January 6, 1999. In the case of a

[[Page 952]]

qualifying event occurring on or after such date and before
the date of the enactment of this Act, such event shall be
deemed (for purposes of such amendments) to have occurred on
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Advance notice of terminations and reductions.--The
amendment made by subsection (e)(2) shall apply to qualifying
events occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act,
except that in no case shall notice be required under such
amendment before such date.
____

Summary of Bill

TITLE I. Access to Medicare Benefits for Individuals 62-to-65 Years of
Age

The centerpiece of this initiative is the Medicare buy-in
for people ages 62 to 65.
Eligibility: Persons ages 62 to 65 who do not have access
to employer sponsored or federal health insurance may
participate.
Premium Payments: Participants would pay two separate
premiums--one before age 65 and one between age 65 and 85.
Base premium: The base premium would be paid monthly
between enrollment and when the participant turns age 65. It
is the part of the full premium that represents what Medicare
would pay on average for all people in this age group. The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this would
be about $300 per month. It would be adjusted for geographic
variation, but the maximum premium would be limited to ensure
participation in all areas of the country.
Deferred premium: The deferred premium would be paid
monthly beginning at age 65 until the beneficiary turns age
85. It is the part of the premium that covers the extra costs
for participants who are sicker than average. Participants
will be told before they enroll what their deferred premium
will be. CBO estimates that this would be about $10 per month
per year of participation.
This two-part payment plan acts like a mortgage: it makes
the up-front premium affordable but requires participants to
pay back the Medicare ``loan'' with interest. It also ensures
that in the long-run, this buy-in is self-financing.
Enrollment: Eligible persons can enroll within two months
of either turning 62 or losing access to employer-based or
federal insurance.
Applicability of Medicare Rules: Services covered and cost
sharing would be, for paying participants, the same as those
of Medicare beneficiaries. Participants would have the choice
of fee-for-service or managed care. No Medicaid assistance
would be offered to participants for premiums or cost
sharing. Medigap policy protections would apply, but the open
enrollment provision remains at age 65.
Disenrollment: Persons could stop buying into Medicare at
any time. People who disenroll would pay the deferred premium
as though they had been enrolled for a full year (e.g., a
person who buys in for 3 months in 2000 would pay the
deferred premium as though they participated for 12 months).
This is intended to act as a disincentive for temporary
enrollment.

TITLE II. Access to Medicare Benefits for Displaced Workers 55-to-62
Years of Age

In addition to people ages 62 to 65, a targeted group of 55
to 61 year olds could buy into Medicare. The Medicare buy-in
would be the same as above, with the following exceptions.
Eligibility: Persons would be eligible if they are between
ages 55 and 61 and: (1) lost their job because their firm
closed, downsized, or moved, or their position was eliminated
(defined as being eligible for unemployment insurance) after
January 1, 2000; (2) had health insurance through their
previous job for at least one year (certified through the
process created under HIPAA to guarantee continuation
coverage); and (3) do not have access to employer sponsored,
COBRA, or federal health insurance. Spouses of these eligible
people may also buy into Medicare.
Premium Payments: Participants would pay one,
geographically adjusted premium, with no Medicare ``loan''.
This premium represents what Medicare would pay on average
for all people in this age group plus an add-on (65 percent
of the age average) to compensate for some of the extra costs
of participants who may be sicker than average. These
premiums would be about $400 per month.
Disenrollment: Like persons ages 62 to 65, eligible
displaced workers and their spouses must enroll in the buy-in
within 63 days of becoming eligible. Participants continue to
pay premiums until they voluntarily disenroll, gain access to
federal or employer-based insurance or turn 62 and become
eligible for the more general Medicare buy-in. Once they
disenroll, they may only re-enroll if they meet all the
eligibility rules again.

TITLE III. Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act

The bill would also help retirees and their dependents
whose former employer unexpectedly drops their retiree health
insurance, leaving them uncovered and with few options.
Eligibility: Persons ages 55 to 65 and their dependents who
were receiving retiree health coverage but whose coverage was
terminated or substantially reduced (benefits' value reduced
by half or premiums increased to a level above 125 percent of
the applicable premium) would qualify for ``COBRA''
continuation coverage.
Premium Payments: Participants would pay 125 percent of the
applicable premium. This premium is higher than what most
other COBRA participants pay (102 percent) because it is
expected that those who enroll will be sicker (have higher
costs) than other members of their age cohort.
Enrollment: Participants would enroll through their former
employer, following the same rules as other COBRA eligibles.
Disenrollment: Retirees would be eligible until they turn
65 years-old and could disenroll at any time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Moynihan for his strong
leadership on this issue. More than three million Americans aged 55 to
64 have no health insurance today. They are too young for Medicare, and
unable to obtain private coverage they can afford. Often, they are
victims of corporate downsizing, or of a company's decision to cancel
their health insurance.
In the past year, the number of the uninsured in this age group
increased at a faster rate than other age groups. These Americans have
been left out and left behind through no fault of their own--often
after decades of hard work and reliable insurance coverage--and it is
time for Congress to provide a helping hand.
Many of these fellow citizens have serious health problems that
threaten to destroy the savings of a lifetime and that prevent them
from finding or keeping a job. Even those without current health
problems know that a single serious illness could wipe out their
savings.
These uninsured Americans tend to be in poorer health than other
members of their age group. Their health continues to deteriorate, the
longer they remain uninsured. This unnecessary burden of illness is a
preventable human tragedy--and it adds to Medicare's long-term costs,
because when these individuals turn 65, they enter the program with
more costly health problems and greater unmet needs for health care
services.
Even those with good coverage today can't be certain that it will be
there tomorrow. No one nearing retirement can be confident that the
health insurance they have now will protect them until they qualify for
Medicare at 65.
Our legislation provides three kinds of assistance. First, any
uninsured American who is 62 years old or older and not yet eligible
for Medicare can buy into the program. Participants will pay the full
cost of their coverage, but to help keep premiums affordable, they can
defer payment of part of the premiums until they turn 65 and Medicare
starts to pay most of their health care costs. Once they turn 65, this
defrayed premium will be paid back over time at a modest monthly
charge, currently estimated at about $10 per month for each year of
participation in the buy-in program. Individuals age 55-61 who lose
their health insurance because they are laid off or because their
company closes will also be able to buy into Medicare. Finally, people
who have retired before 65 with the expectation of employer-paid health
insurance coverage would be allowed to buy into the company's program
for active workers if the company dropped retirement coverage.
Today's proposal is a lifeline for all of these Americans. It is also
a constructive step toward the day when every American will be
guaranteed the fundamental right to health care.
In the past, opponents have waged a campaign of disinformation that
this sensible plan is somehow a threat to Medicare. They are wrong--and
the American people understand that they are wrong. Under our proposal,
the participants themselves will ultimately pay the full cost of this
new coverage. The modest short-term budget impact can be financed
through savings obtained by reducing fraud or abuse in Medicare.
Every American should have the security and peace of mind of knowing
that their critical years in the workforce will not be haunted by the
fear of devastating medical costs or the inability to meet basic
medical needs. Uninsured Americans who are too

[[Page 953]]

young for Medicare but too old to purchase affordable private insurance
coverage deserve our help--and we intend to see that they get it.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 203. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
provide for an equitable determination of the Federal medical
assistance percentage; to the Committee on Finance.

equitable federal medicaid assistance percentage act of 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce today a bill to revise the
formula for determining the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage.
Medicaid services and associated administrative costs are financed
jointly by the Federal government and the States. The formula for the
Federal share of a State's payments for services, known as the Federal
Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), was established when Medicaid was
created as part of the Social Security Amendments of 1965.
The FMAP is a somewhat exotic creature, derived from the Hill-Burton
Hospital Survey and Construction Act of 1946, specifically designed to
provide a higher Federal matching rate for states with lower state
funds, as measured by per capital income. A Senate colleague once
described it to me as the South's revenge for the Civil War.
The Federal government's share depends upon the square of the ratio
of state per capita income to national per capita income. Per capita
income is a proxy but not the only proxy for measuring the States'
relative fiscal capacity and its population's need for assistance. In
March 1982, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
stated that,

* * * the use of a single index, resident per capita
income, to measure fiscal capacity, seriously misrepresents
the actual ability of many governments to raise revenue.
Because states tax a wide range of economic activities other
than the income of their residents, the per capita income
measure fails to account for sources of revenue to which
income is only related in part. This misrepresentation
results in the systematic over and understatement of the
ability of many states to raise revenue. In addition, the
recent evidence suggests that per capital income has
deteriorated as a measure of capacity * * *

Squaring the ration of state per capita income to national per capita
income exaggerates the differences between States with regard to this
inadequate proxy for both state wealth and of population in need of
assistance. At a commencement address in 1977 at Kingsborough Community
College in Brooklyn, New York, I proposed a change to the Hill-Burton
formula by suggesting that the ``square'' in the formula be changed to
the ``square root.'' The idea has not caught on.
However, I remain hopeful. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included a
provision that increased the FMAP rate for Alaska. My colleagues in the
Committee on Finance included this provision as an amendment in
Committee Mark-up. The provision increased Alaska's FMAP rate from 50
percent to 59.8 percent to reflect the higher cost of living relative
to the national average. For states with a higher cost of living, the
per capita income proxy systematically underestimates the state's
population in need and overstates its relative capacity to raise
revenues. As conferees, we posited:

The current methodology for calculating match rates, per
capita income, is a poor and inadequate measure of the
states' needs and abilities to participate in the Medicaid
program. The conferees note that the poverty guidelines for
Alaska and Hawaii, for example, are different than those for
the rest of the nation but there is no variation from the
national calculation in the FMAP. The increase in Alaska's
FMAP demonstrates there is a recognition that a more accurate
measurement is needed in the program.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) has studied the formula inequity
for the past several years. In testimony before the Committee on
Finance in 1995, GAO concluded:

The current formula has not moderated disparities across
states with respect to the populations and benefits Medicaid
covers and the relative financial burden states bear in
funding their programs. Our work over the years shows that
the use of per capita income to reflect a state's wealth
sometimes overstates or understates the size of a state's
poverty population and its financial resources.

The legislation that I introduce today--The Equitable Federal Medical
Assistance Percentage Act of 1999--would provide a more accurate and
equitable formula by using more precise measures of a state's relative
capacity to raise revenue--or its wealth--and its share of the
population in need. The original concept is preserved: The goal of the
matching formula is to offset the imbalance between state resources and
the number of people in need in the state. I call this the state fiscal
imbalance. A state with a larger share of resources compared to its
share of need is in a stronger fiscal position than a state with higher
needs and fewer resources. The formula would measure the imbalance
relative to its share of the national average: the state's fiscal
imbalance is its share of the nation's resources compared to its share
of the nation's population in need.
State Share of Financing Resources. Per capita income only reflects a
portion of a state's potential revenue. Perhaps in the 1950's and
1960's, per capita income was the best available indicator of state's
wealth. Currently, the Treasury Department estimates each state's total
taxable resources or TTR. In 1994, TTR replaced per capita income in
the formula for distributing funds under the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and
Mental Health Services block grant. This proposed formula compares the
state's TTR to sum of all states' TTRs. Funding capacity would be
adjusted to account for the difference in regional health care costs.
This provides a more accurate reflection of a state's ability to
purchase comparable services with similar tax efforts. The health care
price index is based on the Medicare hospital payment adjuster that
accounts for geographic wage differences and on a proxy for office
space costs.
The Population-in-Need. The number of persons in need of public
assistance would be measured by the state's population living below the
poverty level. Per capita income--or the average mean income--is a
particularly poor measure of poverty. An average income measure skews a
state's situation if a state has extreme differences in income levels
among its residents, such as a state with a high portion of residents
with high-incomes and a high portion of residents with low-incomes.
Despite similar per capita incomes, New York has a poverty rate that is
nearly 50 percent greater than in Massachusetts, according to GAO.
The EFMAP would also use adjusted poverty levels to reflect regional
variation in cost of living. Without a cost of living adjustment, the
national poverty level underestimates what constitutes poverty in New
York, with a cost of living 13 percent above the national average. In
addition, the state's adjusted poverty count would be weighted to
account for higher cost populations. For example, health care costs for
the elderly can be about two and a half to three and a half times that
for adults and six to eight times the cost for children.
Currently, New York's FMAP is 50 percent. This proposed formula with
more accurate and equitable measures of wealth and need would provide
New York with a 70 percent matching rate. In State Fiscal Year 1998-
1999, this would yield $6.5 billion in additional federal Medicaid
funds for New York. In fact, several other states and the District of
Columbia would receive a greater matching rate under this bill.
In a response to a request from both then-Senator D'Amato and me in
1997, GAO determined that had New York had a similar equitable formula,
the state would have received between $3.4 billion and $6.5 billion in
additional federal assistance during the period of 1989 through 1996.
These additional federal funds would by no means eliminate the existing
$18 billion deficit in the balance of payments that New York annually
has each year. However, it would be a start, and an important first
step toward correcting a longstanding inequity in the Federal
government's balance of payments with the states.
I ask unanimous consent that the summary of the bill and the full
text of the bill be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 954]]

S. 203

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 ``Equitable Federal Medical
Assistance Percentage Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. EQUITABLE DETERMINATION OF FEDERAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE
PERCENTAGE.

(a) In General.--Section 1905 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(v) Determination of Equitable Federal Medical Assistance
Percentage.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
equitable Federal medical assistance percentage determined
under this subsection is, for any State for a fiscal year,
100 percent reduced by the product of 0.45 and the ratio of--
``(A) the State's share of cost-adjusted total taxable
resources determined under paragraph (2); to
``(B) the State's share of program need determined under
paragraph (3).
``(2) Determination of state's share of cost-adjusted total
taxable resources.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), with
respect to a State, the State's share of cost-adjusted total
taxable resources is the ratio of--
``(i)(I) an amount equal to the most recent 3-year average
of the total taxable resources (TTR) of the State, as
determined by the Secretary of the Treasury; divided by
``(II) the most recent 3-year average of the State's
geographic health care cost index (as determined under
subparagraph (B)); to
``(ii) an amount equal to the sum of the amounts determined
under clause (i) for all States.
``(B) State's geographic health care cost index.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(II),
the geographic health care cost index for a State for a
fiscal year is the sum of--

``(I) 0.10;
``(II) 0.75 multiplied by the ratio of--

``(aa) the most recent 3-year average annual wages for
hospital employees in the State or the District of Columbia
(as determined under clause (ii)); to
``(bb) the most recent 3-year average annual wages for
hospital employees in the 50 States and the District of
Columbia (as determined under that clause); and

``(III) 0.15 multiplied by the State's fair market rent
index (as determined under clause (iii)).

``(ii) Determination of average annual wages of hospital
employees.--The Secretary shall provide for the determination
of the most recent 3-year average annual wages for hospital
employees in a State or the District of Columbia and,
collectively, in the 50 States and the District of Columbia,
based on the area wage data applicable to hospitals under
section 1886(d)(3)(E) (or, if such data no longer exists,
comparable data of hospital wages) for discharges occurring
during the fiscal years involved.
``(iii) Determination of fair market rent index.--For
purposes of clause (i)(III), a State's fair market rent index
is the ratio of--

``(I) the average annual fair market rent for 2-bedroom
housing units in the State or the District of Columbia, to be
determined by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
for the most recent 3 fiscal years for which data are
available; to
``(II) the average annual fair market rent for such housing
units for all States for such 3 fiscal years, as so
determined.

``(3) Determination of state's share of program need.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), with
respect to a State, the State's share of program need is the
ratio of--
``(i) the State's program need determined under
subparagraph (B); to
``(ii) the sum of the amounts determined under clause (i)
for all States.
``(B) Determination of state program need.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), a
State's program need is equal to the average (determined for
the most recent 5 fiscal years for which data are available)
of the sum of the products determined under clause (iv) for
each such fiscal year (based on the number of State residents
whose income is below the State's cost-of-living adjusted
poverty income level (as determined under clauses (ii) and
(iii)).
``(ii) Determination of number of state residents with
incomes belowthe State's cost-of-living adjusted poverty
level.--

``(I) In general.--For purposes of clause (iv), with
respect to each State and the District of Columbia, the
number of residents whose income for a fiscal year is below
the State's cost-of-living adjusted poverty income level
applicable to a family of the size involved (as determined
under clause (iii)) shall be determined.
``(II) Census data.--The determination of the number of
residents under subclause (I) shall be based on data made
generally available by the Bureau of the Census from the
Current Population Survey.

``(iii) Determination of state's cost-of-living adjusted
poverty income level.--

``(I) In general.--For purposes of clause (ii)(I), a
State's cost-of-living adjusted poverty income level is the
product of--

``(aa) the United States poverty income threshold for the
fiscal year involved (as defined by the Office of Management
and Budget for general statistical purposes); and
``(bb) the State's cost-of-living index (as determined
under subclause (II)).

``(II) Determination of state's cost-of-living index.--
Subject to subclause (III), a State's cost-of-living index is
the sum of--

``(aa) 0.56; and
``(bb) the product of 0.44 and the State's fair market rent
index determined under paragraph (2)(B)(iii).

``(III) Alternate methodology.--The Commissioner of Labor
Statistics may use an alternate methodology to the formula
set forth under subclause (II) to determine a State's cost-
of-living index for purposes of subclause (I)(bb) if the
Commissioner determines that the alternate methodology
results in a more accurate determination of that index.

``(iv) Weighting of age categories of residents in poverty
to account for higher cost populations.--For purposes of
clause (i), the products determined under this clause for a
fiscal year are the following:

``(I) Weighting of elderly residents in poverty.--The
number of residents determined under clause (ii) of the State
or the District of Columbia for the fiscal year who have
attained age 65 multiplied by 3.65.
``(II) Weighting of adult residents in poverty.--The number
of residents determined under clause (ii) of the State or the
District of Columbia for the fiscal year who have attained
age 21 but have not attained age 65 multiplied by 1.0.
``(III) Weighting of children in poverty.--The number of
residents determined under clause (ii) of the State or the
District of Columbia for the fiscal year who have not
attained age 21 multiplied by 0.5.

``(4) Special rules.--For purposes of this subsection and
subsection (b), the equitable Federal medical assistance
percentage is--
``(A) in the case of the District of Columbia, the
percentage determined under this subsection for the District
of Columbia (without regard to this paragraph) multiplied by
1.4.; and
``(B) in the case of Alaska, 59.8 percent.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1905(b) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``100 per centum'' and all that follows through ``Hawaii''
and inserting ``the equitable Federal medical assistance
percentage determined under subsection (v)'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``50 per centum or more
than 83 per centum,,'' and inserting ``50 percent or more
than 83 percent, and''; and
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``50 per centum'' and all
that follows through the period at the end of paragraph (3)
and inserting ``50 percent.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act take
effect on October 1, 1999.
____

Summary of Equitable Federal Medical Assistance Percentage

Purpose: This legislation would replace an outdated formula
for determining the federal match rate for Medicaid
expenditures. The Federal Medical Assistance Percentage
(FMAP) formula was intended to account for each state's
financial burdens by measuring its relative wealth--or
ability to pay costs--and its population in need for
assistance--or its extent of poverty. However, the current
formula uses a rather crude proxy for these measurements--the
per capita income in the state.
Current Formula: The Federal match rate (FMAP) for each
state is determined as follows:
FMA=1-0.45 (state's per capita income/national per capita
income) \2\
Per capita income measures both the state's financing
capacity and population in need.
Proposed Legislation: The new formula is based on several
years of analysis by the GAO:

State Share of Resources
EFMAP=1-0.45 -----------------------------------------------
State Share of Program Need
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A State's Share of resources would be measured by the
state's Total Taxable Revenue (TTR)--the total amount of
revenue raised in the state--compared to the sum of all
states' TTR. This state TTR amount is adjusted for geographic
differences in health care prices, or a state health care
index. The health care index adjustment accounts for the
state's ability to purchase comparable services with similar
tax efforts.
State Program Need would be measured by the number of
residents with incomes below the poverty level compared to
the sum of all poor in the nation. To determine the number of
residents living below poverty, the Federal Poverty Level
would be adjusted for each state to account for geographic
cost of living differences. The adjusted poverty

[[Page 955]]

count would also be weighted to account for higher cost
populations, such as the elderly.
The proposal would apply the current 50 percent floor and
83 percent ceiling to EFMAP rates for states. The EFMAP would
be the federal matching rate for all program's that currently
use the FMAP, such as the Children's Health Insurance Program
(CHIP) and foster care, as well as Medicaid.
Alaska would keep its current FMAP of 59.8 percent. The
District of Columbia would have an adjusted EFMAP rate of
reflect its locality status, as under current law.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Lieberman:)
S. 204. A bill to amend chapter 5 of title 13, United States Code, to
require that any data relating to the incidence of poverty produced or
published by the Secretary of Commerce for subnational areas is
corrected for differences in the cost of living in those areas; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.

Poverty Data Correction Act of 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. Presidents, I rise today to introduce the Poverty
Data Correction Act of 1999, a bill to require that any data relating
to the incidence of poverty in subnational areas be corrected for the
differences in the cost of living in those areas. This legislation
would correct a longstanding inequity and would provide us with more
accurate information on the number of Americans living in poverty.
Residents of states such as New York and Connecticut earn more, on
average, than do residents of Mississippi or Alabama. But they also
must spend more. One need only try to rent an apartment in New York
City to understand this. Yet, we have a national poverty threshold
adjusted only by family size and composition, not by where the family
lives. A family of four just above the poverty threshold in New York
City or Anchorage is demonstrably worse off than a family of four just
below the threshold in, say, rural Arkansas. And yet that family in New
York might be ineligible for federal aid and will not count in the
tallies of the poverty population used to allocate funds among the
states, while the Arkansas family will be eligible and will be counted.
Professor Herman B. ``Dutch'' Leonard and Senior Research Associate
Monica Friar of the Taubman Center for State and local government at
Harvard have devised an index of poverty statistics that reflects the
differences in the cost of living between States. If we look at the
``Friar-Leonard State Cost-of-Living index,'' as it has come to be
known, we find that, in Fiscal Year 1997, New York had a poverty rate
of 20.5% third highest in the nation. yet the official poverty level
for 1997 is 16.6%. These adjusted statistics still reflect poverty
accurately: the poor states of Mississippi and New Mexico remain ranked
higher than New York in this ranking of misfortune.
Mr. President, our current poverty data are inaccurate. And these
substandard data are used in allocation formulas used to distribute
millions of Federal dollars each year. As a result, states with high
costs of living--New York, Connecticut, Vermont, Hawaii, California,
just to name a few--are not getting their fair share of Federal dollars
because differences in the cost of living are ignored. And the poor of
these high cost states are penalized because they happen to live there.
It is time to correct this inequity.
I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation and its
full text be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 204

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 ``Poverty Data Correction Act
of 1999''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT.

(a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 13, United States Code,
is amended by adding after subchapter V the following:

``SUBCHAPTER VI--POVERTY DATA

``Sec. 197. Correction of subnational data relating to
poverty

``(a) Any data relating to the incidence of poverty
produced or published by or for the Secretary for subnational
areas shall be corrected for differences in the cost of
living, and data produced for State and sub-State areas shall
be corrected for differences in the cost of living for at
least all States of the United States.
``(b) Data under this section shall be published in 1999
and at least every second year thereafter.

``Sec. 198. Development of State cost-of-living index and
State poverty thresholds

``(a) To correct any data relating to the incidence of
poverty for differences in the cost of living, the Secretary
shall--
``(1) develop or cause to be developed a State cost-of-
living index which ranks and assigns an index value to each
State using data on wage, housing, and other costs relevant
to the cost of living; and
``(2) multiply the Federal Government's statistical poverty
thresholds by the index value for each State's cost of living
to produce State poverty thresholds for each State.
``(b) The State cost-of-living index and resulting State
poverty thresholds shall be published before September 30,
2000, for calendar year 1999 and shall be updated annually
for each subsequent calendar year.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 5 of title 13, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``SUBCHAPTER VI--POVERTY DATA

``197. Correction of subnational data relating to poverty.
``198. Development of State cost-of-living index and State poverty
thresholds.''.
____

Poverty Data Correction Act of 1999--Brief Description of Provisions

i. requires adjustment of poverty data for differences in cost of
living

The bill would require that any data relating to poverty on
a subnational basis (including state-by-state data) be
corrected for the differences in the cost of living by state
or sub-state areas. The costs of basic needs, such as
housing, vary substantially from state-to-state and
assessments of poverty in the United States should take this
into account.

ii. requires development of state cost-of-living index and poverty
thresholds

To enable the adjustments required above, the bill requires
the development of a state-specific cost-of-living index
based upon wage, housing, and other cost information relevant
to the cost of living. The bill also requires that the
Federal government's poverty thresholds be multiplied by this
index to produce state-specific poverty thresholds. These
thresholds, which vary by family size, are the ``poverty
line'' used to determine the number of individuals and
families in poverty.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Kerrey):
S. 205. A bill to establish a Federal Commission on Statistical
Policy to study the reorganization of the Federal statistical system,
to provide uniform safeguards for the confidentiality of information
acquired from exclusively statistical purposes, and to improve the
efficiency of Federal statistical programs and the quality of Federal
statistics by permitting limited sharing of records among designated
agencies for statistical purposes under strong safeguards; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.

federal commission on statistical policy act of 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague,
Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, in introducing legislation to establish
a Federal Commission on Statistical Policy. Congressman Stephen Horn of
California and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York plan to
introduce similar legislation in the House of Representatives.
This legislation is similar to S. 1404, The Federal Statistical
System Act of 1997, a bill which was favorably reported out of the
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs October 6 of last year by a 9
to 0 vote.
This Senator first introduced legislation to study the Federal
statistical system on September 25, 1996, for the 104th Congress, and
again on January 21, 1997, for the 105th Congress. Over the past few
years, I have testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management and the House Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information and Technology to explain this legislation.
This bill represents more than 2 years of work and much bipartisan
cooperation.
The Federal Commission on Statistical Policy would consist of 16
Presidential and congressional appointees with expertise in fields such
as actuarial science, finance, and economics. Its members would conduct
a thorough review of the U.S. statistical system,

[[Page 956]]

and issue a report that would include recommendations on whether
statistical agencies should be consolidated into a centralized Federal
Statistical Service.
Of course, we have an example of a consolidated statistical agency
just across our northern border. Statistics Canada, the most
centralized statistical agency among OECD countries, was established in
November 1918 as a reaction to a familiar problem. At that time, the
Canadian Minister of Industry was trying to obtain an estimate of the
manpower resources that Canada could commit to the war effort. And he
got widely different estimates from statistical agencies scattered
throughout the government. Consolidation seemed the way to solve this
problem, and so it happened--as it can in a parliamentary government--
rather quickly, just as World War I ended.
In April of 1997, a member of my staff met in Ottawa with the
Assistant Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada. He reported that
Statistics Canada is doing quite well. Decisions about the allocation
of resources among statistical functions are made at the highest levels
of government because the Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada holds
a position equivalent to Deputy Cabinet Minister. He communicates
directly with Deputy Ministers in other Cabinet Departments. In
contrast, in the United States, statistical agencies are buried several
levels below the Cabinet Secretaries, so it is difficult for the heads
of these statistical agencies to bring issues to the attention of high-
ranking administration officials and Congress.
Statistics are part of our constitutional arrangement, which provides
for a decennial census that, among other purposes, is the basis for
apportionment of membership in the House of Representatives. I quote
from article I, section I:

. . . enumeration shall be made within three Years after the
first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and
within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as
they shall be Law direct.

But, while the Constitution directed that, there be a census, there
was, initially, no Census Bureau. The earliest censuses were conducted
by U.S. marshals. Later on, statistical bureaus in state governments
collected the data, with a Superintendent of the Census overseeing from
Washington. It was not until 1902 that a permanent Bureau of the Census
was created by the Congress, housed initially in the Interior
Department. In 1903 the Bureau was transferred to the newly established
Department of Commerce and Labor.
The Statistics of Income Division of the Internal Revenue Service,
which was originally an independent body, began collecting data in
1866. It too was transferred to the new Department of Commerce and
Labor in 1903, but then was put in the Treasury Department in 1913
following ratification of the 16th amendment, which gave Congress the
power to impose an income tax.
A Bureau of Labor, created in 1884, was also initially in the
Interior Department. The first Commissioner, appointed in 1885, was
Colonel Carroll D. Wright, a distinguished Civil War veteran of the New
Hampshire Volunteers. A self-trained social scientist, Colonel Wright
pioneered techniques for collecting and analyzing survey data on
income, prices and wages. He had previously served as Chief of the
Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics, a post he held for 15 years, and in
that capacity had supervised the 1880 Federal census in Massachusetts.
In 1888, the Bureau of Labor became an independent agency. In 1903,
it was once again made a Bureau, joining other statistical agencies in
the Department of Commerce and Labor. When a new Department of Labor
was formed in 1913, given labor an independent voice--as labor was
``removed'' from the Department of Commerce and Labor--what we now know
as the Bureau of Labor Statistics was transferred to the newly created
Department of Labor.
And so it went. Statistical agencies sprung up as needed. And they
moved back and forth as new executive departments were formed. Today,
some 89 different organizations in the Federal government comprise
parts of our national statistical infrastructure. Eleven of these
organizations have as their primary function the generation of data.
These 11 organizations are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Agency Department established
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Agricultural Statistical Agriculture........... 1863
Service.
Statistics of Income Division, IRS. Treasury.............. 1866
Economic Research Service.......... Agriculture........... 1867
National Center for Education Education............. 1867
Statistics.
Bureau of Labor Statistics......... Labor................. 1884
Bureau of the Census............... Commerce.............. 1902
Bureau of Economic Analysis........ Commerce.............. 1912
National Center for Health Health and Human 1912
Statistics. Services.
Bureau of Justice Statistics....... Justice............... 1968
Energy Information Administration.. Energy................ 1974
Bureau of Transportation Statistics Transportation........ 1991
------------------------------------------------------------------------

need for legislation

President Kennedy once said:

Democracy is a difficult kind of government. It requires
the highest qualities of self-discipline, restraints, a
willingness to make commitments and sacrifices for the
general interest, and also it requires knowledge.

That knowledge often comes from accurate statistics. You cannot begin
to solve a problem until you can measure it.
This legislation would require the Commission to conduct a
comprehensive examination of the current statistical system and focus
particularly on whether to create a centralized Federal Statistical
Service.
In September 1996, prior to introduction of my first bill to
establish a Commission to study the U.S. statistical system, I received
a letter from nine former Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers
(CEA) endorsing this legislation. Excluding two recent chairs, who at
that time were still serving in the Clinton Administration, the
signatories include virtually every living former chair of the CEA.
While acknowledging that the United States ``possesses a first-class
statistical system,'' these former Chairmen remind us that ``problems
periodically arise under the current system of widely scattered
responsibilities.'' They conclude as follows:

Without at all prejudging the appropriate measures to deal
with these difficult problems, we believe that a
thoroughgoing review by a highly qualified and bipartisan
Commission as provided in your Bill has great promise of
showing the way to major improvements.

The letter is signed by: Michael J. Boskin, Martin Feldstein, Alan
Greenspan, Paul W. McCracken, Raymond J. Saulnier, Charles L. Schultze,
Beryl W. Sprinkel, Herbert Stein, and Murray Weidenbaum.
It happens that this Senator's association with the statistical
system in the Executive Branch began over three decades ago. I was
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy and Planning in the
administration of President John F. Kennedy. This was a new position in
which I was nominally responsible for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I
say nominally out of respect for the independence of that venerable
institution, which as I noted earlier long predated the Department of
Labor itself. The then-Commissioner of the BLS, Ewan Clague, could not
have been more friendly and supportive. And so were the statisticians,
who undertook to teach me to the extent I was teachable. They even
shared professional confidences. And so it was that I came to have some
familiarity with the field.
For example, we had just received a report on price indexes from a
committee led by a Nobel laureate, George Stigler. The Committee
stressed the importance of accurate and timely statistics noting that:

The periodic revision of price indexes, and the almost
continuous alterations in details of their calculation, are
essential if the indexes are to serve their primary function
of measuring the average movements of prices.

While the Final Report of the Advisory Commission: To Study The
Consumer Price Index. (The Boskin Commission) focused primarily on the
extent to which changes in the CPI overstate inflation, the Commission
also addressed issues related to the effectiveness of Federal
statistical programs and recommended that:

Congress should enact the legislation necessary for the
Departments of Commerce and Labor to share information in the
interest of improving accuracy and timeliness of economic
statistics and to reduce the resources consumed in their
development and production.

[[Page 957]]

There is, of course, a long history of attempts to reform our
nation's statistical infrastructure. In her invaluable book Organizing
to Count, Janet L. Norwood, former Commissioner of the BLS, has
described efforts to bring some order to the national statistical
system, going back to a Commission appointed by the Secretary of the
Treasury in 1903 and following through to a 1990 Working Group of the
Cabinet Council for Economic Policy, chaired by Michael Boskin. One
such effort occurred in July of 1933 when, by Executive Order,
President Roosevelt set up a Central Statistical Board--organized by
the Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins, and the sometime Commissioner
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Isador Lubin. I say sometime because
although Lubin headed the Bureau from 1933-1946, much of his time was
spent ``on leave'' serving in various White House statistical
assignments, including as a special statistical assistant to the
President. In their fine history of the agency, The First Hundred Years
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Joseph P. Goldberg and William T.
Moye write that the Board was then established by Congress ``in 1935
for a 5-year period to ensure consistency, avoid duplication, and
promote economy in the work of government statistics.''
But in most cases little or no action has been taken on their
recommendations. The result of this inaction has been an ever expanding
statistical system. It continues to grow in order to meet new data
needs, but with little or no regard for the overall objectives of the
system. As Norwood notes in her book:

The U.S. system has neither the advantages that come from
centralization nor the efficiency that comes from strong
coordination in decentralization. As presently organized,
therefore, the country's statistical system will be hard
pressed to meet the demands of a technologically advanced,
increasingly internationalized world in which the demand for
objective data of high quality is steadily rising.

In this era of government downsizing and budget cutting, it is
unlikely that Congress will appropriate more funds for statistical
agencies. It is clear that to preserve and improve the statistical
system we must consider reforming it, yet we must not attempt to reform
the system until we have heard from experts in the field.
The legislation establishes a Federal Commission on Statistical
Policy for a three-year term. The Commission would consist of 16
members: eight of whom to be chosen by the President; four of whom by
the Speaker of the House of Representatives in consultation with the
Majority and Majority Leader; and four of whom by the President pro
tempore of the Senate in consultation with the Majority and Minority
Leader.
In an initial 18-month period, the Commission would determine whether
to consolidate the Federal statistical system, and would also make
recommendations with respect to ways to achieve greater efficiency in
carrying out Federal statistical programs. If the Commission recommends
creation of a newly established independent Federal statistical agency,
designated as the Federal Statistical Service, the Commission's report
would contain draft legislation incorporating such recommendations.
Over the full term of the Commission, it would also conduct
comprehensive studies and submit reports to Congress that:
Evaluate the mission of various statistical agencies and the
relevance of such missions to current and future needs;
Evaluate key statistics and measures and make recommendations on ways
to improve such statistics better serve the intended major purposes;
Review information technology and make recommendations of appropriate
methods for disseminating statistical data; and
Compare our statistical system with the systems of other nations.
This legislation is only a first step, but an essential one. The
Commission will provide Congress with the blueprint for reform. It will
be up to us to finally take action after nearly a century of
inattention to this very important issue.
I ask unanimous consent the full text of the letter from nine former
Chairmen of the Council of Economic Adviser, a summary of the bill, and
the full text of the bill be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 205

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal
Commission on Statistical Policy Act of 1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Sense of the Congress.

TITLE I--FEDERAL COMMISSION ON STATISTICAL POLICY

Sec. 101. Establishment.
Sec. 102. Duties of Commission.
Sec. 103. Powers.
Sec. 104. Commission procedures.
Sec. 105. Personnel matters.
Sec. 106. Other administrative provisions.
Sec. 107. Termination.
Sec. 108. Fast-track procedures for statistical reorganization bill.

TITLE II--EFFICIENCY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF FEDERAL STATISTICAL SYSTEMS

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 203. Definitions.
Sec. 204. Statistical Data Centers.
Sec. 205. Statistical Data Center responsibilities.
Sec. 206. Confidentiality of information.
Sec. 207. Coordination and oversight.
Sec. 208. Implementing regulations.
Sec. 209. Conforming amendments and proposed changes in law.
Sec. 210. Effect on other laws.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress, recognizing the importance of statistical
information in the development of national priorities and
policies and in the administration of public programs, finds
the following:
(1) While the demand for statistical information has grown
substantially during the last 30 years, the difficulty of
coordinating planning within the decentralized Federal
statistical system has limited the usefulness of statistics
in defining problems and determining national policies to
deal with complex social and economic issues.
(2) Coordination and planning among the statistical
programs of the Government are necessary to strengthen and
improve the quality and utility of Federal statistics and to
reduce duplication and waste in information collected for
statistical purposes.
(3) High-quality Federal statistical products and programs
are essential for sound business and public policy decisions.
(4) The challenge of providing high-quality statistics has
increased because our economy and society are more complex,
new technologies are available, and decisionmakers need more
complete and accurate data.
(5) Maintaining quality of Federal statistical products
requires full cooperation between Federal statistical
agencies and those persons and organizations that respond to
their requests for information.
(6) Federal statistical products and programs can be
improved, without reducing respondent cooperation, by
permitting carefully controlled sharing of data with
statistical agencies in a manner that is consistent with
confidentiality commitments made to respondents.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) a more centralized statistical system is integral to
efficiency;
(2) with increased efficiency comes better integration of
research methodology, survey design, and economies of scale;
(3) the Chief Statistician must have the authority,
personnel, and other resources necessary to carry out the
duties of that office effectively, including duties relating
to statistical forms clearance; and
(4) statistical forms clearance at the Office of Management
and Budget should be better distinguished from regulatory
forms clearance.
TITLE I--FEDERAL COMMISSION ON STATISTICAL POLICY

SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT.

(a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be
known as the ``Federal Commission on Statistical Policy'' (in
this title referred to as the ``Commission'').
(b) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 16
members as follows:
(1) Appointments by president.--Eight members appointed by
the President from among individuals who--
(A) are not officers or employees of the United States; and
(B)(i) are qualified to serve on the Commission by virtue
of experience relating to statistical agencies of the Federal
Government; or
(ii) have expertise relating to organizational
reorganization, State sources and uses

[[Page 958]]

of statistical information, statistical analysis, or
management of complex organizations.
(2) Appointments from the house of representatives.--Four
members appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, in consultation with the majority leader and
minority leader of the House of Representatives, from among
individuals who--
(A) are not officers or employees of the United States; and
(B)(i) are qualified to serve on the Commission by virtue
of experience relating to statistical agencies of the Federal
Government; or
(ii) are also qualified to serve on the Commission by
virtue of expertise relating to organizational
reorganization, State sources and uses of statistical
information, statistical analysis, or management of complex
organizations.
(3) Appointments from the senate.--Four members appointed
by the President pro tempore of the Senate, in consultation
with the majority leader and minority leader of the Senate,
from among individuals who--
(A) are not officers or employees of the United States; and
(B)(i) are qualified to serve on the Commission by virtue
of experience relating to statistical agencies of the Federal
Government; or
(ii) are also qualified to serve on the Commission by
virtue of expertise relating to organizational
reorganization, State sources and uses of statistical
information, statistical analysis, or management of complex
organizations.
(c) Deadline for Appointment.--Members shall be appointed
to the Commission not later than 4 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(d) Political Affiliation.--
(1) Appointments by president.--Of the members of the
Commission appointed under subsection (b)(1), not more than 4
may be of the same political party.
(2) Appointments by speaker of the house of
representatives.--Of the members of the Commission appointed
under subsection (b)(2), not more than 2 may be of the same
political party.
(3) Appointments by president pro tempore.--Of the members
of the Commission appointed under subsection (b)(3), not more
than 2 may be of the same political party.
(e) Chairman.--The Commission shall select a Chairman from
among the members of the Commission by a majority vote of all
members.
(f) Consultation Before Appointments.--In making
appointments under subsection (b), the President, the Speaker
of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the
House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the
Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate shall consult
with appropriate professional organizations, including State
and local governments.
(g) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be
appointed for the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the
Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled
in the same manner as the original appointment.

SEC. 102. DUTIES OF COMMISSION.

(a) Study and Report.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall study and
submit to Congress and the President a written report and
draft legislation as necessary and appropriate on the Federal
statistical system including--
(1) recommendations on whether the Federal statistical
system could be reorganized by consolidating the statistical
functions of agencies that carry out statistical programs;
(2) recommendations on how the consolidation described in
paragraph (1) may be achieved without disruption in the
release of statistical products;
(3) any other recommendations regarding how the Federal
statistical system could be reorganized to achieve greater
efficiency, improve quality, timeliness, and adaptability to
change in carrying out Federal statistical programs;
(4) recommendations on possible improvements to procedures
for the release of major economic and social indicators by
the United States; and
(5) recommendations to ensure requirements that State data
and information shall be maintained in a confidential,
consistent, and comparable manner.
(b) Presidential Review.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Time period for review.--Not later than 15 days after
the receipt of the report (including any draft legislation)
under subsection (a), the President shall approve or
disapprove of the report.
(B) Approval or inaction.--If the President approves the
report, the Commission shall submit the report to Congress on
the day following such approval. If the President does not
disapprove the report, the Commission shall submit the report
to Congress on the day following the 15-day period described
under subparagraph (A).
(C) Disapproval.--If the President disapproves the report,
the President shall note his specific objections and any
suggested changes to the Commission.
(D) Final report after disapproval.--The Commission shall
consider any objections and suggested changes submitted by
the President and may modify the report based on those
objections and suggested changes. Not later than 10 days
after receipt of the President's disapproval under
subparagraph (C), the Commission shall submit the final
report (as modified if modified) to Congress.
(c) Statistical Reorganization Bill.--
(1) In general.--If the written report submitted to
Congress under subsection (a) contains recommendations on the
consolidation of the Federal statistical functions of the
United States into a Federal Statistical Service, the report
shall contain draft legislation incorporating such
recommendations under subsection (a)(1).
(2) Draft legislation.--Draft legislation submitted to
Congress under this subsection shall be strictly limited to
implementation of recommendations for the consolidation or
reorganization of the statistical functions of Federal
agencies.
(3) Provisions in draft legislation.--Draft legislation
submitted to Congress under this subsection that would
establish a Federal Statistical Service shall--
(A) provide for an Administrator and Deputy Administrator
of the Federal Statistical Service, and the creation of other
officers as appropriate; and
(B) contain a provision designating the Administrator as a
member of the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy
established under section 3504(e)(8) of title 44, United
States Code.
(d) Other Duties of the Commission.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall also conduct
comprehensive studies and submit reports to Congress on all
matters relating to the Federal statistical infrastructure,
including longitudinal surveys conducted by private agencies
and partially funded by the Federal Government for the
purpose of identifying opportunities to improve the quality
of statistics in the United States.
(2) Inclusions.--Studies under this subsection shall
include--
(A) a review and evaluation of the mission of various
statistical agencies and the relevance of such missions to
current and future needs;
(B) an evaluation of key statistics and measures and
recommendations on ways to improve such statistics so that
the statistics better serve the intended major purposes;
(C) a review of interagency coordination of statistical
data and recommendations of methods to standardize collection
procedures and surveys, as appropriate, and presentation of
data throughout the Federal system;
(D) a review of information technology and recommendations
of appropriate methods for disseminating statistical data,
with special emphasis on resources such as the Internet that
allow the public to obtain information in a timely and cost-
effective manner;
(E) an identification and examination of issues regarding
individual privacy in the context of statistical data;
(F) a comparison of the United States statistical system to
statistical systems of other nations for the purposes of
identifying best practices;
(G) a consideration of the coordination of statistical data
with other nations and international agencies, such as the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; and
(H) recommendations regarding the presentation to the
public of statistical data collected by Federal agencies, and
standards of accuracy for statistical data used by Federal
agencies, including statistical data relating to--
(i) the national poverty level and county poverty levels in
the United States;
(ii) the Consumer Price Index;
(iii) the gross domestic product; and
(iv) other indicators of economic and social activity,
including marriage and divorce in the United States.
(e) Definition of Federal Statistical Service.--As used in
this section, the term ``Federal Statistical Service'' means
an entity established after the date of the enactment of this
Act as an independent agency in the executive branch, the
purpose of which is to carry out Federal statistical programs
and to which the statistical functions of Federal statistical
agencies are transferred.

SEC. 103. POWERS.

(a) Hearings and Sessions.--The Commission may, for the
purpose of carrying out this Act, hold hearings, sit and act
at times and places, take testimony, and receive evidence as
the Commission considers appropriate.
(b) Obtaining Information.--The Commission may secure
directly from any department or agency of the United States
information necessary to enable it to carry out this Act.
Upon request of the Chairman of the Commission, the head of
that department or agency shall furnish that information to
the Commission.
(c) Contract Authority.--The Commission may contract with
and compensate government and private agencies or persons
without regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41
U.S.C. 5).

SEC. 104. COMMISSION PROCEDURES.

(a) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairman or a majority of its members.

[[Page 959]]

(b) Quorum.--Eight members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum but a lesser number may hold hearings.
(c) Delegation of Authority.--Any member or agent of the
Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any
action which the Commission is authorized to take by this
Act.
(d) Voting.--The Commission shall adopt any recommendation
by a vote of a majority of its members.

SEC. 105. PERSONNEL MATTERS.

(a) Pay of Members.--Members of the Commission appointed
under paragraphs (2)(B), (3), or (4) of section 101(b) shall
be entitled to receive the daily equivalent of the rate of
basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule under
section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day
(including travel time) during which they are engaged in the
actual performance of duties vested in the Commission.
(b) Travel Expenses.--Each member of the Commission shall
receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of
title 5, United States Code.
(c) Staff.--The Commission may appoint and fix the pay of
personnel as it considers appropriate, including an Executive
Director.
(d) Applicability of Certain Civil Service Laws.--Staff of
the Commission may be appointed without regard to the
provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing
appointments in the competitive service, and may be paid
without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter
III of chapter 53 of that title relating to classification
and General Schedule pay rates, except that an individual so
appointed may not receive pay in excess of the highest basic
rate of pay established for the Senior Executive Service
under section 5382 of such title.

SEC. 106. OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

(a) Postal and Printing Services.-- The Commission may use
the United States mails and obtain printing and binding
services in the same manner and under the same conditions as
other departments and agencies of the United States.
(b) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of
the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall
provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the
administrative support services necessary for the Commission
to carry out its responsibilities under this Act.
(c) Experts and Consultants.--The Commission may procure
temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of
title 5, United States Code.

SEC. 107. TERMINATION.

The Commission shall terminate 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 108. EXPEDITED PROCEDURES FOR STATISTICAL REORGANIZATION
BILL.

(a) Rules of House of Representatives and Senate.--This
section is enacted by the Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such it
shall be considered as part of the rules of each House,
respectively, or of that House to which it specifically
applies, and shall supersede other rules only to the extent
that they are inconsistent with this section; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as relating to such
House) at any time, in the same manner and to the same extent
as in the case of any other rule of that House.
(b) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
``statistical reorganization bill'' means only a bill of
either House of Congress--
(1) that is identical to the draft legislation submitted to
Congress by the Commission under section 102(b); and
(2) that is introduced as provided in subsection (c).
(c) Introduction and Referral.--Within 15 legislative days
after the Commission submits to Congress legislation under
section 102(b), such legislation shall be introduced (by
request) in the House by the Majority Leader of the House of
Representatives and shall be introduced (by request) in the
Senate by the Majority Leader of the Senate. Such bills shall
be referred to the appropriate committee in each House.
(d) Period for Committee and Floor Consideration.--
(1) Discharge.--If the committee of either House to which a
statistical reorganization bill has been referred has not
reported it at the close of the sixtieth day after its
introduction, such committee may be discharged from further
consideration of the bill upon a petition supported in
writing in the Senate by 10 Members of the Senate and in the
House of Representatives by 40 Members of the House of
Representatives and it shall be placed on the appropriate
calendar.
(2) Days.--For purposes of this subsection, in computing a
number of days in either House, there shall be excluded the
days on which that House is not in session because of an
adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain or an
adjournment of the Congress sine die.
(e) Floor Consideration in the House.--A motion in the
House of Representatives to proceed to the consideration of a
statistical reorganization bill shall be highly privileged
except that a motion to proceed to consider may only be made
on the second legislative day after the calendar day on which
the Member making the motion announces to the House his
intention to do so. The motion to proceed to consider is not
debatable. An amendment to the motion shall not be in order,
nor shall it be in order to move to reconsider the vote by
which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
(f) Floor Consideration in the Senate.--
(1) Motion to proceed.--On or after the fifth day after the
date on which a statistical reorganization bill or conference
report is placed on the Senate calendar, it shall be in order
for any Senator to make a motion to proceed to consideration
of the bill or conference report. The motion shall be
privileged and not debatable. An amendment to the motion
shall not be in order, nor shall it be in order to move to
reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or
disagreed to.
(2) Final passage.--Immediately following the conclusion of
the debate on a statistical reorganization bill or conference
report, the vote on final passage shall occur.
(g) Conference.--In the Senate, a motion to elect or to
authorize the appointment of conferees shall not be
debatable.

SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated for the Commission
such sums as may be necessary to carry out the functions of
the Commission.
TITLE II--EFFICIENCY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF FEDERAL STATISTICAL SYSTEMS

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Statistical
Confidentiality Act''.

SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) High quality Federal statistical products and programs
are essential for sound business and public policy decisions.
(2) The challenge of providing high quality statistics has
increased because the Nation's economy and society are more
complex, new technologies are available, and decision makers
need more complete and accurate data.
(3) Maintaining quality requires full cooperation between
Federal statistical agencies and those persons and
organizations that respond to requests for information.
(4) Federal statistical products and programs can be
improved, without reducing respondent cooperation, by
permitting carefully controlled sharing of data with
statistical agencies in a manner that is consistent with
confidentiality commitments made to respondents.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are the
following:
(1) To provide that individually identifiable information
furnished either directly or indirectly to designated
statistical agencies for exclusively statistical purposes
shall not be disclosed in individually identifiable form by
such agencies for any other purpose without the informed
consent of the respondent.
(2) To prohibit the use by such agencies, in individually
identifiable form, of any information collected, compiled, or
maintained solely for statistical purposes under Federal
authority, to make any decision or take any action directly
affecting the rights, benefits, and privileges of the person
to whom the information pertains, except with the person's
consent.
(3) To reduce the reporting burden, duplication, and
expense imposed on the public by permitting interagency
exchange, solely for statistical purposes, of individually
identifiable information needed for statistical programs, and
to establish secure conditions for such exchanges.
(4) To reduce the cost and improve the accuracy of
statistical programs by facilitating cooperative projects
between statistical agencies, and to create a secure
environment where expertise and data resources that reside in
different agencies can be brought together to address the
information needs of the public.
(5) To reduce the risk of unauthorized disclosure of
information maintained solely for statistical purposes by
designating specific statistical agencies that are authorized
to receive otherwise privileged information for such purposes
from other agencies, and to prescribe specific conditions and
procedures that must be complied with in any such exchange.
(6) To establish a consistent basis under the requirements
of section 552 of title 5, United States Code (popularly
known as the ``Freedom of Information Act'') for exempting a
defined class of statistical information from compulsory
disclosure.
(7) To ensure that existing avenues for public access to
administrative data or information under section 552a of
title 5, United States Code (popularly known as the ``Privacy
Act'') or section 552 of such title (popularly known as the
``Freedom of Information Act'') are retained without change.
(8) To establish consistent procedural safeguards for
records disclosed exclusively for statistical purposes,
including both public input and an oversight process to
ensure fair information practices.

SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:

[[Page 960]]

(1) The term ``agency'' means--
(A) any ``executive agency'' as defined under section 102
of title 31, United States Code; or
(B) any ``agency'' as defined under section 3502 of title
44, United States Code.
(2) The term ``agent'' means a person designated by a
Statistical Data Center to perform, either in the capacity of
a Federal employee or otherwise, exclusively statistical
activities authorized by law under the supervision or control
of an officer or employee of that Statistical Data Center,
and who has agreed in writing to comply with all provisions
of law that affect information acquired by that Statistical
Data Center.
(3) The term ``identifiable form'' means any representation
of information that permits information concerning individual
subjects to be reasonably inferred by either direct or
indirect means.
(4) The term ``nonstatistical purpose'' means any purpose
that is not a statistical purpose, and includes any
administrative, regulatory, adjudicatory, or other purpose
that affects the rights, privileges, or benefits of a
particular identifiable respondent.
(5) The term ``respondent'' means a person who or
organization that--
(A) is requested or required to supply information to an
agency;
(B) is the subject of information requested or required to
be supplied to an agency; or
(C) provides that information to an agency.
(6) The term ``statistical activities''--
(A) means the collection, compilation, processing, or
analysis of data for the purpose of describing or making
estimates concerning the whole or relevant groups or
components within, the economy, society, or the natural
environment; and
(B) includes the development of methods or resources that
support those activities, such as measurement methods,
models, statistical classifications, or sampling frames.
(7) The term ``statistical purpose''--
(A) means the description, estimation, or analysis of the
characteristics of groups without regard to the identities of
individuals or organizations that comprise such groups; and
(B) includes the development, implementation, or
maintenance of methods, technical or administrative
procedures, or information resources that support such
purposes.

SEC. 204. STATISTICAL DATA CENTERS.

(a) In General.--Each of the following is designated as a
Statistical Data Center:
(1) The Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of
Commerce.
(2) The Bureau of the Census in the Department of Commerce.
(3) The Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of
Labor.
(4) The National Agricultural Statistics Service in the
Department of Agriculture.
(5) The National Center for Education Statistics in the
Department of Education.
(6) The National Center for Health Statistics in the
Department of Health and Human Services.
(7) The Energy End Use and Integrated Statistics Division
of the Energy Information Administration in the Department of
Energy.
(8) The Division of Science Resources Studies in the
National Science Foundation.
(b) Designation.--In the case of a reorganization that
eliminates, or substantially alters the mission or functions
of, an agency or agency component listed under subsection
(a), the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
after consultation with the head of the agency proposing the
reorganization, may designate an agency or agency component
that shall serve as a successor Statistical Data Center under
the terms of this title, if the Director determines that--
(1) the primary activities of the proposed Statistical Data
Center are statistical activities specifically authorized by
law;
(2) the successor agency or component would participate in
data sharing activities that significantly improve Federal
statistical programs or products;
(3) the successor agency or component has demonstrated its
capability to protect the individual confidentiality of any
shared data; and
(4) the statutes that apply to the proposed Statistical
Data Center are not inconsistent with this title.
(c) Notice and Comment.--The head of an agency seeking
designation as a successor under this section shall, after
consultation with the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget, provide public notice and an opportunity to
comment on the consequences of such designation and on those
determinations upon which the designation is proposed to be
based.
(d) Prohibition Against Increase in Number of Centers.--No
action taken under this section shall increase the number of
Statistical Data Centers authorized by this title.

SEC. 205. STATISTICAL DATA CENTER RESPONSIBILITIES.

The Statistical Data Centers shall--
(1) identify opportunities to eliminate duplication and
otherwise reduce reporting burden and cost imposed on the
public by sharing information for exclusively statistical
purposes;
(2) enter into joint statistical projects to improve the
quality and reduce the cost of statistical programs;
(3) safeguard the confidentiality of individually
identifiable information acquired for statistical purposes by
assuring its physical security and by controlling access to,
and uses made of, such information; and
(4) respect the rights and privileges of the public by
observing and promoting fair information practices.

SEC. 206. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

(a) In General.--Data or information acquired by a
Statistical Data Center for exclusively statistical purposes
shall be used only for statistical purposes. Such data or
information shall not be disclosed in identifiable form for
any other purpose without the informed consent of the
respondent.
(b) Rule Distinguishing Data or Information.--If a
Statistical Data Center is authorized by any other statute to
collect data or information for nonstatistical purposes, the
head of the Statistical Data Center shall clearly distinguish
such data or information by rule. Such rule shall provide for
fully informing the respondents requested or required to
supply such data or information of such nonstatistical uses
before collecting such data or information.
(c) Disclosure.--Data or information may be disclosed by an
agency to 1 or more Statistical Data Centers, if--
(1) the disclosure and use are not inconsistent with any
provision of law or Executive order that explicitly limit the
statistical purposes for which such data or information may
be used;
(2) the disclosure is not prohibited by law or Executive
order in the interest of national security;
(3) the data or information are to be used exclusively for
statistical purposes by the Statistical Data Center or
Centers; and
(4) the disclosure is made under the terms of a written
agreement between a Statistical Data Center or Centers and
the agency supplying information as authorized by this
subsection, specifying--
(A) the data or information to be disclosed;
(B) the purposes for which the data or information are to
be used; and
(C) appropriate security procedures to safeguard the
confidentiality of the data or information.
(d) Agreements.--Data or information supplied to a
Statistical Data Center under an agreement authorized under
subsection (b)(4) shall not be disclosed in identifiable form
by that Center for any purpose, except that data or
information collected directly by any party to such agreement
may be disclosed to any other party to that agreement for
exclusively statistical purposes specified in that agreement.
(e) Notice.--Whenever a written agreement authorized under
subsection (c)(4) concerns data that respondents were
required by law to report and the agreement contains terms
that could not reasonably have been anticipated by
respondents who provided the data that will be disclosed, or
upon the initiative of any party to such an agreement, or
whenever ordered by the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget, the terms of such agreement shall be described in
a public notice issued by the agency that intends to disclose
the data. Such notice shall allow a minimum of 60 days for
public comment before such agreement shall take effect. The
Director shall be fully apprised of any issues raised by the
public and may suspend the effect of such an agreement to
permit modifications responsive to public comments.
(f) FOIA and Privacy Act.--The disclosure of data or
information by an agency under subsection (c) shall in no way
alter the responsibility of that agency under other statutes,
including sections 552 and 552a of title 5, United States
Code, for the disclosure or withholding of the same or
similar information retained by that agency.
(g) Disclosure Provisions of Other Laws.--If information
obtained by an agency is released to another agency under
this section, all provisions of law (including penalties)
that relate to the unlawful disclosure of information apply
to the officers, employees, or agents of the agency to which
information is released to the same extent and in the same
manner as the provisions apply to the officers and employees
of the agency which originally obtained the information. The
officers, employees, and agents of the agency to which the
information is released, in addition, shall be subject to the
same provisions of law, including penalties, relating to the
unlawful disclosure of information that would apply to
officers and employees of that agency if the information had
been collected directly by that agency.

SEC. 207. COORDINATION AND OVERSIGHT.

(a) In General.--The Director of the Office of Management
and Budget shall coordinate and oversee the confidentiality
and disclosure policies established by this title.
(b) Report of Disclosure Agreements.--
(1) Report to the office of management and budget.--The
head of a Statistical Data Center shall report to the Office
of Management and Budget--
(A) each disclosure agreement entered into under this
title;
(B) the results of any review of information security
undertaken at the request of the Office of Management and
Budget; and
(C) the results of any similar review undertaken on the
initiative of the Statistical Data Center or an agency
supplying data or information to a Statistical Data Center.

[[Page 961]]

(2) Report to congress.--The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall include a summary of all reports
submitted to the Director under this subsection and any
actions taken by the Director to advance the purposes of this
title in the Office's annual report to the Congress on
statistical programs.
(c) Review and Approval of Rules.--The Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall review and approve any
rules proposed pursuant to this title for consistency with
this title and chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code.

SEC. 208. IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or the head
of a Statistical Data Center or of an agency providing
information to a Center, may promulgate such rules as may be
necessary to implement this title.
(b) Consistency.--The Director of the Office of Management
and Budget shall promulgate rules or provide such other
guidance as may be needed to ensure consistent interpretation
of this title by the affected agencies.
(c) Agency Rules.--Rules governing disclosures of
information authorized by this title shall be promulgated by
the agency that originally collected the information, subject
to the review and approval required under this title.

SEC. 209. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS AND PROPOSED CHANGES IN LAW.

(a) Department of Commerce.--
(1) The first section of the Act of January 27, 1938 (15
U.S.C. 176a; 52 Stat. 8) is amended in the second sentence by
striking ``The'' and inserting ``Except as provided in the
Statistical Confidentiality Act, the''.
(2)(A) Chapter 10 of title 13, United States Code, is
amended by adding after section 401 the following:

``Sec. 402. Exchange of census information with Statistical
Data Centers

``The Bureau of the Census is authorized to provide data
collected under this title to Statistical Data Centers
(Centers) named in the Statistical Confidentiality Act, or
their successors designated under the terms of that Act.''.
(B) The table of sections for chapter 10 of title 13,
United States Code, is amended by adding after the item
relating to section 401 the following:

``402. Exchange of census information with Statistical Data Centers.''.

(b) Department of Energy.--
(1) Section 205 of the Department of Energy Organization
Act (42 U.S.C. 7135) is amended by adding after subsection
(l) the following new subsection:
``(m)(1)(A) The Administrator shall designate an
organizational unit to conduct statistical activities
pertaining to energy end use consumption information. Using
procedures authorized by the Statistical Confidentiality Act,
the Administrator shall ensure the security, integrity, and
confidentiality of the information that has been submitted in
identifiable form and supplied exclusively for statistical
purposes either directly to the Administrator or by other
Government agencies.
``(B) To carry out this section, the Administrator shall
establish procedures for the disclosure of these data to
Statistical Data Centers for statistical purposes only
consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act and the
Statistical Confidentiality Act.
``(2)(A) A person may not publish, cause to be published,
or otherwise communicate, statistical information designated
in paragraph (1) in a manner that identifies any respondent.
``(B) A person may not use statistical information
designated in paragraph (1) for a nonstatistical purpose.
``(C) The identity of a respondent who supplies, or is the
subject of, information collected for statistical purposes--
``(i) may not be disclosed through any process, including
disclosure through legal process, unless the respondent
consents in writing;
``(ii) may not be disclosed to the public, unless
information has been transformed into a statistical or
aggregate form that does not allow the identification of the
respondent who supplied the information or who is the subject
of that information; and
``(iii) may not, without the written consent of the
respondent, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose
in an action, suit, or other judicial or administrative
proceeding.
``(D) Any person who violates subparagraphs (2)(A), (B), or
(C), upon conviction, shall be fined under title 18, United
States Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
``(E) For purposes of this subsection:
``(i) The term `person' has the meaning given the term in
section 1 of title 1, United States Code, but also includes a
local, State, or Federal entity or officer or employee of a
local State or Federal entity.
``(ii) The terms `statistical activities', `identifiable
form', `statistical purpose', `nonstatistical purpose', and
`respondent' have the meaning given those terms in section
203 of the Statistical Confidentiality Act.
``(3) Statistical information designated in paragraph (1)
is exempt from disclosure under sections 205(f) and 407 of
the Department of Energy Organization Act and paragraphs 12,
20, and 59 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974,
or any other law which requires disclosure of that
information.''.
(2) Section 205(f) of the Department of Energy Organization
Act (42 U.S.C. 7135) is amended by inserting ``, excluding
information designated solely for statistical purposes under
subsection (m)(1),'' after ``analysis''.
(3) Section 407 of the Department of Energy Organization
Act (42 U.S.C. 7177a) is amended by inserting ``, excluding
information designated solely for statistical purposes under
subsection (m)(1),'' after ``information''.
(4) The Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 is
amended--
(A) in section 12 (15 U.S.C. 771), by adding after
subsection (f) the following new subsection:
``(g) This section does not apply to information designated
solely for statistical purposes under section 205(m)(1) of
the Department of Energy Organization Act.'';
(B) in section 20(a)(3) (15 U.S.C. 779), by inserting ``,
excluding information designated solely for statistical
purposes under subsection (m)(1) of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7135)'' after ``information'';
and
(C) in section 59 (15 U.S.C. 790h), by inserting ``,
excluding information designated solely for statistical
purposes under subsection (m)(1) of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C 7135)'' after ``information''.
(c) Department of Health and Human Services.--Section 306
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242k) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(o) Sharing of Identifying Information for Statistical
Purposes.--
``(1) In general.--The Director may, subject to the
provisions of paragraph (2), designate as an agent of the
Center (within the meaning of section 203(2) of the
Statistical Confidentiality Act) an individual--
``(A) who is not otherwise an employee, official, or agent
of the Center; and
``(B) who enters into a written agreement with the Director
specifying terms and conditions for sharing of statistical
information.
``(2) Effect of designation.--An individual designated as
an agent of the Center pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be
subject to all restrictions on the use and disclosure of
statistical information obtained by the individual under the
agreement specified in paragraph (1)(B), and to all civil and
criminal penalties applicable to violations of such
restrictions, including penalties under section 1905 of title
18, United States Code, that would apply to the individual if
an employee of the Center.''.
(d) Department of Labor.--The Commissioner of Labor
Statistics shall be authorized to designate agents, as
defined under section 203(2) of this title.
(e) National Science Foundation.--Section 14 of the
National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1873) is
amended--
(1) by striking the paragraph following the heading of
subsection (i) and inserting the following:
``Information supplied to the Foundation or its contractor
in survey forms, questionnaires, or similar instruments for
purposes of section 3(a) (5) or (6) by an individual, by an
industrial or commercial organization, or by an educational
or academic institution that has received a pledge of
confidentiality from the Foundation, may not be disclosed to
the public unless the information has been transformed into
statistical or abstract formats that do not allow the
identification of the supplier. Such information shall be
used in identifiable form only for statistical purposes as
defined in the Statistical Confidentiality Act. The names of
individuals and organizations supplying such information may
not be disclosed to the public.''; and
(2) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k) and
inserting the following new subsection after subsection (i):
``(j) Obligations of Researchers.--In support of functions
authorized by section 3(a) (5) or (6), the Foundation may
designate, at its discretion, authorized persons, including
employees of Federal, State, or local agencies (including
local educational agencies) and employees of private
organizations who may have access, for exclusively
statistical purposes as defined in the Statistical
Confidentiality Act, to identifiable information collected
pursuant to subsection (a) (5) or (6) of this title. No such
person may--
``(1) publish information collected under section 3(a) (5)
or (6) in such a manner that either an individual, an
industrial or commercial organization, or an educational or
academic institution that has received a pledge of
confidentiality from the Foundation can be specifically
identified;
``(2) permit anyone other than individuals authorized by
the Foundation to examine in identifiable form data relating
to an individual, to an industrial or commercial
organization, or to an educational or academic institution
that has received a pledge of confidentiality from the
Foundation; or
``(3) knowingly and willfully request or obtain any
confidential information described

[[Page 962]]

in subsection (i) from the Foundation under false pretenses.
Any person who violates these restrictions shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and fined not more than $10,000.''.
(f) Disclosure Penalties.--Section 1905 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``, or agent of a Statistical Data Center
as defined in the Statistical Confidentiality Act,'' after
``thereof''; and
(2) by striking ``shall be fined not more than $1,000'' and
inserting ``shall be fined under this title''.

SEC. 210. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

(a) Title 44, U.S.C.--This title, including the amendments
made by this title, does not diminish the authority under
section 3510 of title 44, United States Code, of the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget to direct, and of an
agency to make, disclosures that are not inconsistent with
any applicable law.
(b) State law.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
abrogate applicable State law regarding the confidentiality
of data collected by the States.
(c) FOIA.--Data or information acquired for exclusively
statistical purposes as provided in section 206 is exempt
from mandatory disclosure under section 552 of title 5,
United States Code, pursuant to section 552(b)(3) of such
title.
____

Summary of the Federal Commission on Statistical Policy Act of 1999 \1\

OVERVIEW

The Bill establishes a Federal Commission on Statistical
Policy to study the reorganization of the Federal statistical
system, and provides uniform safeguards for the
confidentiality of information acquired exclusively for
statistical purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prepared by the staff of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
1/19/99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FINDINGS

The Congress, recognizing the importance of statistical
information in the development of national priorities and
policies and in the administration of public programs finds
that: the decentralized Federal statistical system has
limited the usefulness of statistics in defining problems and
determining national policies to deal with complex social and
economic issues; coordination is necessary to strengthen and
improve the quality of statistics, and to reduce duplication
and waste; high-quality Federal statistics are essential for
sound business and public policy decisions; the challenge of
providing high-quality statistics has increased because of
the complexity of our economy and society and because of the
need for more accurate information; maintaining the quality
of Federal statistics requires cooperation between the
Federal statistical agencies and respondents to Federal
statistical surveys; and Federal statistics may be improved
by data sharing among the statistical agencies in a
controlled manner that protects the confidentiality promised
to respondents.

SENSE OF THE CONGRESS

The bill expresses the Sense of Congress that: A more
centralized statistical system is integral to efficiency;
Increased efficiency would result in better integration of
research methodology, survey design and economics of scale;
and The Chief Statistician of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) must have the authority, personnel and other
resources necessary to carry out the duties.

TITLE I--FEDERAL COMMISSION ON STATISTICAL POLICY ESTABLISHMENT

A commission is established which is to be known as the
``Federal Commission on Statistical Policy.''
The Commission shall be composed of 16 members: eight to be
appointed by the President; four to be appointed by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives in consultation with
the Majority and Minority Leader; and four to be appointed by
the President pro tempore of the Senate in consultation with
the Majority and Minority Leader.
The Commission would have a term of 36 months from the date
of enactment.

DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION

Within 18 months of its appointment, the Commission shall
study and submit to Congress a written report on Federal
statistics that makes recommendations on: whether the Federal
statistical system could be reorganized by consolidating the
statistical functions of agencies that carry out statistical
programs; how such consolidation could be done without
disruption in the release of statistical products; whether
functions of other Federal agencies that carry out
statistical programs could be transferred to the Federal
Statistical Service; any other issues relating to the
reorganization of Federal statistical programs; and possible
improvements in procedures for the release of major economic
and social indicators.
If the written report of the Commission contains
recommendations on the consolidation of the Federal
statistical functions of the United States into a newly
established independent Federal agency, designated as the
Federal Statistical Service, the report shall contain draft
legislation incorporating those recommendations. The
Commission should also make recommendations for nominations
for the appointment of an Administrator and Deputy
Administrator of the Federal Statistical Service.
During the 36 month term of the Commission, it would also
be responsible for conducting comprehensive studies, and
submitting reports to Congress on all matters relating to the
Federal statistical infrastructure including: an evaluation
of the mission of various statistical agencies and the
relevance of such missions to current and future needs; a
review of information technology and recommendations of
appropriate methods for disseminating statistical data; and a
comparison of our statistical system with the systems of
other nations.

title ii--efficiency and confidentiality of federal statistical systems

The title reaffirms policies that have been applied to
confidential data by statistical agencies for many decades
and extends these policies to protect confidentiality in an
environment which permits carefully controlled sharing of
information exclusively for statistical purposes. It
recognizes that the credible protection of confidentiality is
crucial to ensuring the level of cooperation which produces
accurate and timely responses to statistical inquiries.

designation of statistical data centers

The bill designates the BLS, BEA and Bureau of Census
National Agricultural Statistics Service, The National Center
for Education Statistics, The National Center for Health
Statistics, The Energy End Use and Integrated Statistics
Division of the Energy Information Administration, and The
Division of Science Resources Studies as Statistical Data
Centers; and assigns general responsibilities to the agencies
designated as Statistical Data Centers.

disclosure of data or information by federal agencies to statistical
data centers

The bill establishes a uniform confidentiality policy for
data acquired for exclusively statistical purposes, by
prohibiting disclosures of such data for non-statistical
purposes and limiting disclosures for statistical purposes.

coordination and oversight by office of management and budget

The bill assigns OMB the responsibility for oversight,
reporting, coordination, and review and approval of any
implementing regulations.
____

September 23, 1996.
Hon. Daniel P. Moynihan,
Hon. J. Robert Kerry,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Moynihan and Kerry: All of us are former
Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers. We write to
support the basic objectives and approach of your Bill to
establish the Commission to Study the Federal Statistical
System.
The United States possesses a first-class statistical
system. All of us have in the past relied heavily upon the
availability of reasonably accurate and timely federal
statistics on the national economy. Similarly, our
professional training leads us to recognize how important a
good system of statistical information is for the efficient
operations of our complex private economy. But we are also
painfully aware that important problems of bureaucratic
organization and methodology need to be examined and dealt
with if the federal statistical system is to continue to meet
essential public and private needs.
All of us have particular reason to remember the problems
which periodically arise under the current system of widely
scattered responsibilities. Instead of reflecting a balance
among the relative priorities of one statistical collection
effort against others, statistical priorities are set in a
system within which individual Cabinet Secretaries recommend
budgetary tradeoffs between their own substantive programs
and the statistical operations which their departments,
sometimes by historical accident, are responsible for
collecting. Moreover, long range planning of improvements in
the federal statistical system to meet the changing nature
and needs of the economy is hard to organize in the present
framework. The Office of Management and Budget and the
Council of Economic Advisers put a lot of effort into trying
to coordinate the system, often with success, but often
swimming upstream against the system.
We are also aware, as of course are you, of a number of
longstanding substantive and methodological difficulties with
which the current system is grappling. These include the
increasing importance in the national economy of the service
sector, whose output and productivity are especially hard to
measure, and the pervasive effect both on measures of
national output and income and on the federal budget of the
accuracy (or inaccuracy) with which our measures of prices
capture changes in the quality of the goods and services we
buy.
Without at all prejudging the appropriate measures to deal
with these difficult problems, we believe that a
thoroughgoing review

[[Page 963]]

by a highly qualified and bipartisan Commission as provided
in your Bill has great promise of showing the way to major
improvements.
Sincerely,
Professor Michael J. Boskin, Stanford University; Dr.
Martin Feldstein, National Bureau of Economic Research;
Alan Greenspan; Professor Paul W. McCracken, University
of Michigan; Raymond J. Saulnier; Charles L. Schultze,
The Brookings Institution; Beryl W. Sprinkel; Herbert
Stein, American Enterprise Institute; Professor Murray
Weidenbaum, Center for the Study of American Business.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Chafee):
S. 206. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to
provide for improved data collection and evaluations of State
Children's Health Insurance Programs, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.

the CHIP DATA AND EVALUATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing with my colleague
Senator Chafee the CHIP Data and Evaluation Improvement Act of 1999.
This legislation would ensure comparable data and an adequate
evaluation of children's health coverage under the new Children's
Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Medicaid.
In 1997, CHIP was established to provide health coverage for low-
income uninsured children. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 provided $48
billion over ten years, mostly in the form of a block grant, for states
to develop children's health insurance programs.
New York and other states pioneered expanded children's health
programs well before the enactment of CHIP. With new federal CHIP
funding, more states are beginning to develop their own programs. To
date, 48 states have CHIP plans that have been approved by the Health
Care Financing Administration, with most just beginning to implement
their programs. We await reports on the effectiveness of their efforts
to cover the nation's uninsured children.

THE NEED FOR DATA

Implementing their programs is the first challenge before the states.
For the Federal government, the first challenge clearly will be to
track the experience of children and of the CHIP programs. We will need
data to answer some basic questions: Is the number of uninsured
children being reduced over time, and how effective are the state CHIP
programs at serving them? What are the best practices and initiatives
for finding and enrolling the nation's uninsured children?
We cannot begin to solve a problem until we can measure it.
Appropriate program data and evaluation contributes to sound policy and
program design. In 1994, the Welfare Indicators Act of that year--a
bill that I introduced--became law. The bill directed the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to study the most useful statistics for
tracking and predicting trends in three means-tested cash and
nutritional assistance programs. The first of these, of course, was
ADFC, but the first full Report came two months after AFDC was
repealed.
Without data to track its benefits, a program becomes vulnerable to
reductions in funding. The most recent example is the Social Services
Block Grant under Title XX of the Social Security Act, which funds a
wide array of social services ranging from child care to home-delivered
meals to the elderly. Little summary data on this program has been
released and not all data is reported in a uniform manner. The welfare
repeal bill enacted in 1996 reduced the block grant from $2.8 billion
to $2.38 billion. Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1998 limited funding
for that year to $2.29 billion. The highway and mass transit bill
enacted in 1998 further reduced grants to $1.7 billion by 2001. Most
recently, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999 accelerated that funding limitation
to $1.9 billion in FY 1999.

the chip data and evaluation improvement act of 1999

The CHIP Data and Evaluation Improvement Act of 1999 calls for a
detailed Federal CHIP evaluation by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services. Current law requires a CHIP report from the Secretary to
Congress; however, no funds were authorized. This bill would provide
the necessary funds to conduct an evaluation. The evaluation would
focus, in part, on outreach and enrollment and on the coordinated the
existing Medicaid program and the new CHIP program.
In this era of devolution of social programs, the Federal government
has an increasingly critical responsibility to ensure adequate and
comparable national data. This bill would ensure that standardized CHIP
data is provided. At the very least, the Federal government should
provide, on a national level, estimates of the number of children below
the poverty level who are covered by CHIP and by Medicaid.
The CHIP Data and Evaluation Improvement Act would provide funding so
that existing national surveys would provide reliable and comparable
state-by-state data. The most fundamental question we, as policy
makers, will be asking is whether the number of uninsured children is
going down. With an increasing percent of uninsured, a stable rate
might be considered a success! This bill would provide additional
funding to the Census Bureau for its Current Population Survey--a
national data source of the uninsured--to improve upon the reliability
of its state-by-state estimates of uninsured children.
In addition, the proposal would provide funding for another national
survey to provide reliable state-by-state data on health care access
and utilization for low-income children. Although this survey may also
provide data on the number of uninsured, the CPS would be the primary
source for such figures.
Also, to develop more efficient and centralized statistics, this bill
would coordinate a Federal clearinghouse for all data bases and reports
on children's health. Centralized and complete information is the key
to sound policy and programs.
I ask unanimous consent that the summary and the full text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 206

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 ``CHIP Data and Evaluation
Improvement Act of 1999.''.

SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR RELIABLE ANNUAL STATE-BY-STATE ESTIMATES
ON THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN WHO DO NOT HAVE
HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.

Section 2108 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.1397hh)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Adjustment to Current Population Survey To Include
State-by-State Data Relating to Children Without Health
Insurance Coverage.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce shall make
appropriate adjustments to the annual Current Population
Survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census in order to
produce statistically reliable annual State data on the
number of low-income children who do not have health
insurance coverage, so that real changes in the uninsurance
rates of children can reasonably be detected. The Current
Population Survey should produce data under this subsection
that categorizes such children by family income, age, and
race or ethnicity. The adjustments made to produce such data
shall include, where appropriate, expanding the sample size
used in the State sampling units, expanding the number of
sampling units in a State, and an appropriate verification
element.
``(2) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of
the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and each fiscal
year thereafter for the purpose of carrying out this
subsection.''.

SEC. 3. FUNDING FOR CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE ACCESS AND
UTILIZATION STATE-BY-STATE DATA.

Section 2108 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.1397hh),
as amended by section 2, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Collection of Children's Health Care Access and
Utilization State-Level Data.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
National Center for Health Statistics (in this subsection
referred to as the `Center'), shall collect data on
children's health insurance through the State and Local Area
Integrated Telephone Survey (SLAITS) for the 50 States and
the District of Columbia. Sufficient data shall be collected
so as to provide reliable, annual,

[[Page 964]]

State-by-State information on the health care access and
utilization of children in low-income households, and to
allow for comparisons between demographic subgroups
categorized with respect to family income, age, and race or
ethnicity.
``(2) Survey design and content.--
``(A) In general.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the
Secretary, acting through the Center--
``(i) shall obtain input from appropriate sources,
including States, in designing the survey and making content
decisions; and
``(ii) at the request of a State, may collect additional
data to assist with a State's evaluation of the program
established under this title.
``(B) Reimbursement of costs of additional data.--A State
shall reimburse the Center for services provided under
subparagraph (A)(ii).
``(3) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of
the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and each fiscal
year thereafter for the purpose of carrying out this
subsection.''.

SEC. 4. FEDERAL EVALUATION OF STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH
INSURANCE PROGRAMS.

Section 2108 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.1397hh),
as amended by sections 2 and 3, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Federal Evaluation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, directly or through
contracts or interagency agreements, shall conduct an
independent evaluation of 10 States with approved child
health plans.
``(2) Selection of States.--In selecting States for the
evaluation conducted under this subsection, the Secretary
shall chose 10 States that utilize diverse approaches to
providing child health assistance, represent various
geographic areas (including a mix of rural and urban areas),
and contain a significant portion of uncovered children.
``(3) Matters included.--In addition to the elements
described in subsection (b)(1), the evaluation conducted
under this subsection shall include, but is not limited to,
the following:
``(A) Surveys of the target population (enrollees,
disenrollees, and individuals eligible for but not enrolled
in the program under this title).
``(B) Evaluation of effective and ineffective outreach and
enrollment practices with respect to children (for both the
program under this title and the medicaid program under title
XIX), and identification of enrollment barriers and key
elements of effective outreach and enrollment practices,
including practices that have successfully enrolled hard-to-
reach populations such as children who are eligible for
medical assistance under title XIX but have not been enrolled
previously in the medicaid program under that title.
``(C) Evaluation of the extent to which State medicaid
eligibility practices and procedures under the medicaid
program under title XIX are a barrier to the enrollment of
children under that program, and the extent to which
coordination (or lack of coordination) between that program
and the program under this title affects the enrollment of
children under both programs.
``(D) An assessment of the effect of cost-sharing on
utilization, enrollment, and coverage retention.
``(E) Evaluation of disenrollment or other retention
issues, such as switching to private coverage, failure to pay
premiums, or barriers in the recertification process.
``(4) Submission to congress.--Not later than December 31,
2001, the Secretary shall submit to Congress the results of
the evaluation conducted under this subsection.
``(5) Funding.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the
United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 for the purpose
of conducting the evaluation authorized under this
subsection. Amounts appropriated under this paragraph shall
remain available without fiscal year limitation.''.

SEC. 5. STANDARDIZED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNUAL
REPORTS.

Section 2108(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397hh(a)) is amended by--
(1) redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs
(A) and (B), respectively and indenting appropriately;
(2) by striking ``The State shall--'' and inserting the
following
``(1) In general.--The State shall--''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Standardized reporting requirements.--Each annual
report submitted under this subsection shall, in addition to
expenditure and other reporting requirements specified by the
Secretary, include the following:
``(A) Enrollee counts categorized by income (that at least
identifies enrollees with income below the poverty line),
age, and race or ethnicity, and, if income levels used in
State reporting differ from that prescribed by the Secretary,
a detailed description of the eligibility methodologies used
by the State, including all relevant income disregards,
exempted income, and eligibility family units.
``(B) The annual percentages of those individuals who
sought coverage (as determined by the Secretary) through the
screening and enrollment process established under the State
program under this title who were--
``(i) enrolled in the program under this title;
``(ii) enrolled in the medicaid program under title XIX; or
``(iii) determined eligible for, but not enrolled in, the
program under this title or the medicaid program under title
XIX.''.

SEC. 6. INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDIT AND GAO REPORT ON ENROLLEES
ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID.

Section 2108 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.1397hh),
as amended by section 4, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Inspector General Audit and GAO Report.--
``(1) Audit.--Beginning with fiscal year 2000, and every
third fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary, through the
Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human
Services, shall audit a sample from among the States
described in paragraph (2) in order to--
``(A) determine the number, if any, of enrollees under the
plan under this title who are eligible for medical assistance
under title XIX (other than as an optional targeted low-
income children under section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIV)); and
``(B) assess the progress made in reducing the number of
targeted uncovered low-income children relative to the goals
established in the State child health plan, as reported to
the Secretary in accordance with subsection (a)(2).
``(2) State described.--A State described in this paragraph
is a State with an approved State child health plan under
this title that does not, as part of such plan, provide
health benefits coverage under the State's medicaid program
under title XIX.
``(3) Monitoring and report from gao.--The Comptroller
General of the United States shall monitor the audits
conducted under this subsection and, not later than March 1
of each fiscal year after a fiscal year in which an audit is
conducted under this subsection, shall submit a report to
Congress on the results of the audit conducted during the
prior fiscal year.''.

SEC. 7. COORDINATION OF DATA COLLECTION WITH DATA
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE MATERNAL AND CHILD
HEALTH SERVICES BLOCK GRANT.

Subparagraphs (C)(ii) and (D)(ii) of section 506(a)(2) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 706(a)(2)) are each
amended by inserting ``or the State plan under title XXI''
after ``title XIX''.

SEC. 8. COORDINATION OF DATA SURVEYS AND REPORTS.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, shall
establish a clearinghouse for the consolidation and
coordination of all Federal data bases and reports regarding
children's health.

Summary of the CHIP Data and Evaluation Improvement Act of 1999

purpose

In 1997, 10.7 million children were uninsured. The new
State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and existing
state Medicaid programs are intended to provide coverage for
low-income children. The crucial question is whether the
number of uninsured children has been reduced. Improved
state-specific data is needed to provide that information. In
addition, the Federal government should evaluate the
effectiveness of these programs in finding and enrolling
children in health insurance.

proposal

State-by-state Uninsured Counts and Children's Health Care
Access and Utilization. (1) Provide funds ($10 million
annually) to the Census Bureau to make appropriate
adjustments to the Current Population Survey (CPS) so that
the CPS can provide reliable state-by-state data on uninsured
children. (2) Provide funds ($9 million annually) to the
National Center for Health Statistics to conduct the
Children's Health portion of the State and Local Area
Integrated Telephone Survey (SLAITS) in order to produce
reliable state-by-state date on the health care access and
utilization for low-income children covered by various
insurance programs such as Medicaid and CHIP.
Federal Evaluation. With funding ($10 million), the
Secretary of Health and Human Services would submit to
Congress a Federal evaluation report that would include 10
states representing varying geographic, rural/urban, with
various program designs. The evaluation would include more
specific and comparable evaluation elements than are already
included under Title XXI, such as including surveys of the
target population (enrollees and other eligibles). The study
would evaluate outreach and enrollment practices (for both
CHIP and Medicaid), identify barriers to enrollment, assess
states' Medicaid and CHIP program coordination, assess the
effect of cost sharing on enrollment and coverage retention,
and identify the reasons for disenrollment/retention.
Standardized Reporting. States would submit standardized
data to the Secretary, including enrollee counts
disaggregated by income (below 100%), race/ethnicity, and
age. If

[[Page 965]]

income could not be submitted in a standard form, the state
would submit a detailed description of eligibility
methodologies that outline relevant income disregards. States
would also submit percentages of individuals screened that
are enrolled in CHIP and in Medicaid, and the percent
screened eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled.
Administrative Spending Reports for Title XXI. States would
submit standardized spending reports for the following
administrative costs: data systems, outreach efforts and
program operation (eligibility/enrollment, etc.)
Coordinate CHIP Data with Title V Data Requirements.
Existing reporting requirements for the Maternal and Child
Health Block Grant provide data based on children's health
insurance, including Medicaid. This bill would include the
CHIP program in its reporting.
IG Audit and GAO Report. The Inspector General for the
Department of Health and Human Services would audit CHIP
enrollee data to identify children who are actually eligible
for Medicaid. The General Accounting Office will report the
results to Congress.
Coordination of all Children Data and Reports. The
Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation in the
Department of Health and Human Services would consolidate all
federal data base information and reports on children's
health in a clearinghouse.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 207. A bill to amend title V of the Social Security Act to
increase the authorization of appropriations for the maternal and child
health services block grant and to promote integrated physical and
specialized mental health services for children and adolescents; to the
Committee on Finance.

the maternal child health block grant authorization

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in November 1998, Essence Magazine
reported that between 1980 and 1995 the suicide rate among Black males
ages 10 to 19 more than doubled. According to a Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) study, suicide is now the third leading
cause of death among all youth aged 15-19, and the fourth leading cause
of death among children aged 10-14 nationally. In many states the
problem is even worse. For example, suicide is the number one killer of
adolescents 15-19 years old in Alaska and of children 10 to 14 years
old in Oregon. The majority of children and adolescents at risk for
suicidal behavior are not seen by mental health specialists; therefore,
primary health care providers and others in regular contact with young
people must be available to respond to these troubled youngsters.
The legislation introduced today proposes to focus on seriously
emotionally disabled children and adolescents and their families.
Adolescents with special health needs, those experiencing chronic
physical, developmental, behavioral, or serious emotional problems and
requiring additional health and related services such as assistance in
moving from pediatric to adult health care, to post-secondary education
and employment will be helped by this bill. The Maternal and Child
Health Bureau (MCHB) located within the Department of Health and Human
Services is best situated to implement this program.
The Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) has roots that go back
more than 80 years--to the creation of the Children's Bureau in 1912.
This was the first government agency to act as an advocate for mothers,
children, and adolescents. The Maternal and Child Health Services Block
Grant, the bureau's principle statutory responsibility, was originally
enacted in 1935 as Title V of the Social Security Act. The MCHB is
charged with providing leadership, partnership, and resources to
advance the health of all mothers, infants, children, and adolescents--
including families with low income, those with diverse racial and
ethnic heritages, those with special health care needs, and those
living in rural or isolated areas without access to care.
Title V encompasses a program of grants to the states and two federal
discretionary grant programs: Special Projects of Regional and National
Significance (SPRANS) and Community Integrated Service Systems (CISS).
Funds are used to support research, training, newborn screening,
maternal and child health improvements. CISS is only funded when the
Title V annual appropriation exceeds $600 million) which occurred for
the first time in 1992. The CISS program provides direct support to
public and private groups committed to building integrated health
delivery systems that provide comprehensive services in local
communities. Most importantly, the State Title V programs are required
to coordinate with other related Federal health, education, and social
service programs. For example, MCH programs have provided the technical
expertise and the service delivery systems to ensure that expanded
Medicaid eligibility and benefits result in improved access to services
and improved health status of pregnant women and children.
The federal Title V mandate places a unique responsibility on state
MCH agencies to assure that children with special health care needs are
identified and receive the care they need. State programs are required
to develop family-centered, community-based, coordinated care systems
for children with special health care needs. Services for these
children are most often provided through specialty clinics and through
purchase of private office or hospital-based outpatient and inpatient
diagnostic, treatment, and follow up services. Three-fourths of the
State MCH programs have supported local ``one-stop shopping'' models
integrating access to Title V, Medicaid, the WIC food program, and
other health or social services at one site. In New York, MCH helps to
fund or operate regional pediatric resource centers for children with
special needs.
These centers offer multidisciplinary team care, family support and
service coordination and they are beginning to integrate this approach
into private practice settings where children are now receiving their
specialty medical care. Yet, even though these programs have had
encouraging results, most states' health care systems are unable to
address all the needs of these vulnerable children--and adolescent
youth with special health needs are particularly at risk. And that is
why this legislation is so important. Under current law, Title V is
permanently authorized at $705 million. It was last extended in FY 1993
to conform to funding levels that went beyond the prior authorization
level. This legislation would increase the current MCH Block Grant
authorization level from $705 million to $840 million in FY 2000.
Health care information and education for families with special
health care needs is critical to the success of any integrated physical
and mental health service program. The MCHB has begun family support
efforts for families of children with special health care needs, and
has a promising pilot program to build a national network of statewide
family-run support services in FY 1999. The additional funding in this
bill is intended to expand upon these family support efforts. With
increased funding for the MCH Block Grant, SPRANS and CISS programs,
the MCH Bureau will be well-positioned to collaborate successfully with
other Federal and State partners to address this new project focus.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be inserted in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 207

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH
SERVICES BLOCK GRANT.

(a) Increase in Authorization of Appropriations.--Section
501(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701(a)) is
amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking
``$705,000,000 for fiscal year 1994'' and inserting
``$840,000,000 for fiscal year 2000''.
(b) Promotion of Integrated Physical and Specialized Mental
Health Services.--Section 501(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 701(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``and for'' and inserting ``for''; and
(B) by inserting ``, and for the promotion of integrated
physical and specialized mental health services for children
and adolescents'' before the semicolon; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and
inserting ``, and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 966]]

``(G) integrated physical and specialized mental health
services for children and adolescents.''.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 208. A bill to enhance family life; to the Committee on Finance.

the enhancing family life act of 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Enhancing
Family Life Act of 1999, a bill inspired by an extraordinary set of
proposals by one of our nation's most eminent social scientists,
Professor James Q. Wilson. On December 4, 1997, I had the honor of
hearing Professor Wilson--who is an old and dear friend--deliver the
Francis Boyer Lecture at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The
Boyer Lecture is delivered at AEI's annual dinner by a thinker who has
``made notable intellectual or practical contributions to improved
public policy and social welfare.'' Previous Boyer lecturers have
included Irving Kristol, Alan Greenspan, and Henry Kissinger. In his
lecture, Professor Wilson argued that ``two nations'' now exist within
the United States. He said:

In one nation, a child, raised by two parents, acquires an
education, a job, a spouse, and a home kept separate from
crime and disorder by distance, fences, or guards. In the
other nation, a child is raised by an unwed girl, lives in a
neighborhood filled with many sexual men but few committed
fathers, and finds gang life to be necessary for self-
protection and valuable for self-advancement.

Sadly, this is an all-too-accurate portrait of the American
underclass, the problems of which have been the focus of decades of
unsuccessful welfare reform and crime control efforts. We have tried a
great many ``solutions,'' as Professor Wilson notes:

Congress has devised community action, built public
housing, created a Job Corps, distributed Food Stamps, given
federal funds to low-income schools, supported job training,
and provided cash grants to working families.

Yet still we are faced with two nations. Professor Wilson explains
why: ``[t]he family problem lies at the heart of the emergence of two
nations.'' He notes that as our families become weaker--as more and
more American children are born outside of marriage and raised by one,
not two, parents--the foundation of our society becomes weaker. This
deterioration helps to explain why, as reported by the Census Bureau
today, the poverty rate for American children is almost twice that for
adults aged 18 to 64 (19.9 percent for children versus 10.9 percent for
adults). And it grows increasingly difficult for government to address
the problems of that ``second nation.'' Professor Wilson even quotes
the Senator from New York to this effect: ``If you expect a government
program to change families, you know more about government than I do.''
Even so, Jim Wilson, quite characteristically, has fresh ideas about
what might help. On the basis of recent scholarly research, and common
sense, he urged in the Boyer Lecture that we refocus our attention on
the vital period of early childhood. I was so impressed with his
Lecture that afterward I set about writing a bill to put his
recommendations into effect.
The Enhancing Family Life Act of 1999 contains four key elements, all
of which are related to families. First, it supports ``second change''
maternity homes for unwed teenage mothers. These are group homes where
young women would live with their children under strict adult
supervision and have the support necessary to become productive members
of society. The bill provides $45 million a year to create such homes
or expand existing ones.
Second, it promotes adoption. The bill expands the number of children
in foster care eligible for federal adoption incentives. Too many
children drift in foster care; we should do more to find them permanent
homes. The bill also encourages states to experiment with ``per
capita'' approaches to finding these permanent homes for foster
children, a strategy Kansas has used with success.
Third, it funds collaborative early childhood development programs.
Recent research has reminded us of the critical importance of the first
few years of a child's life. States would have great flexibility in the
use of these funds; for example, the money could be used for pre-school
programs for poor children or home visits of parents of young children.
It provides $3.75 billion over five years for this purpose.
Finally, the legislation creates a new education assistance program
to enable more parents to remain home with young children. A parent who
temporarily leaves the workforce to raise a child would be eligible for
an educational grant, similar to the Pell Grant, to help parent enter,
or re- enter, the labor market with skills and credentials necessary
for success in today's economy once the child is older.
Mr. President, this bill is a starting point. It is what Professor
James Q. Wilson and I believe just might make a difference. We would
certainly welcome the comments of others. I first introduced this
legislation last September and have received several helpful
suggestions. I look forward to further such conversations and comments.
And I would commend to the attention of Senators and other interested
persons the full text of Professor Wilson's lecture ``Two Nations,''
which is available from my office or from the American Enterprise
Institute. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation
and the full text of the bill be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 208

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Enhancing
Family Life Act of 1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of Contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.

TITLE I--ASSISTANCE FOR CHILDREN

Sec. 101. Second chance homes.
Sec. 102. Adoption promotion.
Sec. 103. Early childhood development.

TITLE II--PARENT GRANTS

Sec. 201. Parent grants.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The family is the foundation of public life.
(2) The proportion of illegitimate births to teenagers has
increased astronomically from 13 percent of such births in
1950 to 76 percent of such births in 1996.
(3) Children in one-parent families are more at risk for
many types of anti-social behavior.
(4) The future of children is crucially determined during
the first few years of life.
TITLE I--ASSISTANCE FOR CHILDREN

SEC. 101. SECOND CHANCE HOMES.

(a) In General.--Title XX of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1397-1397f) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 2008. SECOND CHANCE HOMES.

``(a) Entitlement.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to any payment under
sections 2002 and 2007, beginning with fiscal year 2000, each
State shall be entitled to funds under this section for each
fiscal year for the establishment, operation, and support of
second chance homes for custodial parents under the age of 19
and their children.
``(2) Payment to states.--
``(A) In general.--Each State shall be entitled to payment
under this section for each fiscal year in an amount equal to
its allotment (determined in accordance with subsection (b))
for such fiscal year, to be used by such State for the
purposes set forth in paragraph (1).
``(B) Transfers of funds.--The Secretary shall make
payments in accordance with section 6503 of title 31, United
States Code, to each State from its allotment for use under
this section.
``(C) Use.--Payments to a State from its allotment for any
fiscal year must be expended by the State in such fiscal year
or in the succeeding fiscal year.
``(D) Technical assistance.--A State may use a portion of
the amounts described in subparagraph (A) for the purpose of
purchasing technical assistance from public or private
entities if the State determines that such assistance is
required in developing, implementing, or administering the
program funded under this section.
``(3) Second chance homes.--For purposes of this section,
the term `second chance homes' means an entity that provides
custodial parents under the age of 19 and their children with
a supportive and supervised living arrangement in which such
parents would be required to learn parenting skills,
including child development, family budgeting, health and
nutrition, and other skills to promote their long-term
economic independence and the well-being of their children. A
second chance home may also serve

[[Page 967]]

as a network center for other supportive services that might
be available in the community.
``(b) Allotment.--
``(1) Certain jurisdictions.--The allotment for any fiscal
year to Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall be an
amount that bears the same ratio to the amount specified
under paragraph (3) as the allotment that the jurisdiction
receives under section 2003(a) for the fiscal year bears to
the total amount specified for such fiscal year under section
2003(c).
``(2) Other states.--The allotment for any fiscal year for
each State other than Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana
Islands shall be an amount which bears the same ratio to--
``(A) the amount specified under paragraph (3); reduced by
``(B) the total amount allotted for that fiscal year under
paragraph (1),
as the allotment that the State receives under section
2003(b) for the fiscal year bears to the total amount
specified for such fiscal year under section 2003(c).
``(3) Amount specified.--The amount specified for purposes
of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be $40,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000 and each succeeding fiscal year thereafter.
``(c) Local Involvement.--Each State shall seek local
involvement from the community in any area in which a second
chance home receiving funds pursuant to this section is to be
established. In determining criteria for targeting funds
received under this section, each State shall evaluate the
community's commitment to the establishment and planning of
the home.
``(d) Limitations on the Use of Funds.--
``(1) Construction.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
funds made available under this section may not be used by
the State, or any other person with which the State makes
arrangements to carry out the purposes of this section, for
the purchase or improvement of land, or the purchase,
construction, or permanent improvement (other than minor
remodeling) of any building or other facility.
``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the limitation
contained in paragraph (1) upon the State's request for such
a waiver if the Secretary finds that the request describes
extraordinary circumstances to justify the waiver and that
permitting the waiver will contribute to the State's ability
to carry out the purposes of this section.
``(e) Treatment of Indian Tribes.--
``(1) In general.--An Indian tribe may apply to the
Secretary to establish, operate, and support adult-supervised
group homes for custodial parents under the age of 19 and
their children in accordance with an application procedure to
be determined by the Secretary. Except as otherwise provided
in this subsection, the provisions of this section shall
apply to Indian tribes receiving funds under this subsection
in the same manner and to the same extent as the other
provisions of this section apply to States.
``(2) Allotment.--If the Secretary approves an Indian
tribe's application, the Secretary shall allot to such tribe
for a fiscal year an amount which the Secretary determines is
the Indian tribe's fair and equitable share of the amount
specified under paragraph (3) for all Indian tribes with
applications approved under this subsection (based on
allotment factors to be determined by the Secretary). The
Secretary shall determine a minimum allotment amount for all
Indian tribes with applications approved under this
subsection. Each Indian tribe with an application approved
under this subsection shall be entitled to such minimum
allotment.
``(3) Amount specified.--The amount specified under this
paragraph for all Indian tribes with applications approved
under this subsection is $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and
each succeeding fiscal year thereafter.
``(4) Indian tribe defined.--In this section, the term
`Indian tribe' means any Indian tribe, band, nation, pueblo,
or other organized group or community, including any Alaska
Native entity which is recognized as eligible for the special
programs and services provided by the United States to Indian
tribes because of their status as Indians.
``(f) Research and Evaluation.--
``(1) In general.--The amount appropriated to carry out
this section for each fiscal year shall be increased by 2
percent and the Secretary shall reserve an amount equal to
that increase to pay for the costs of conducting, through
grant, contract, or interagency agreement, research and
evaluation projects regarding the second chance homes funded
under this section. In conducting such projects, the
Secretary shall give priority to projects that are undertaken
by independent and impartial organizations.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit a
report to Congress on the research and evaluation projects
conducted in accordance with this subsection.''.
(b) Recommendations on Use of Government Surplus
Property.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, after consultation with the Secretary of Defense,
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the
Administrator of the General Services Administration, shall
submit recommendations to Congress on the extent to which
surplus properties of the United States Government may be
used for the establishment of second chance homes receiving
funds under section 2008 of the Social Security Act, as added
by subsection (a).

SEC. 102. ADOPTION PROMOTION.

(a) Adoption of Children With Special Needs.--
(1) In general.--Section 473(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 673(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), a child
meets the requirements of this paragraph if such child--
``(i) prior to termination of parental rights and the
initiation of adoption proceedings was in the care of a
public or licensed private child care agency or Indian tribal
organization either pursuant to a voluntary placement
agreement (provided the child was in care for not more than
180 days) or as a result of a judicial determination to the
effect that continuation in the home would be contrary to the
safety and welfare of such child, or was residing in a foster
family home or child care institution with the child's minor
parent (either pursuant to such a voluntary placement
agreement or as a result of such a judicial determination);
and
``(ii) has been determined by the State pursuant to
subsection (c) to be a child with special needs, which needs
shall be considered by the State, together with the
circumstances of the adopting parents, in determining the
amount of any payments to be made to the adopting parents.
``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and
except as provided in paragraph (7), a child who is not a
citizen or resident of the United States and who meets the
requirements of subparagraph (A) shall be treated as meeting
the requirements of this paragraph for purposes of paragraph
(1)(B)(ii).
``(C) A child who meets the requirements of subparagraph
(A), who was determined eligible for adoption assistance
payments under this part with respect to a prior adoption (or
who would have been determined eligible for such payments had
the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 been in effect at
the time that such determination would have been made), and
who is available for adoption because the prior adoption has
been dissolved and the parental rights of the adoptive
parents have been terminated or because the child's adoptive
parents have died, shall be treated as meeting the
requirements of this paragraph for purposes of paragraph
(1)(B)(ii).''.
(2) Exception.--Section 473(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 673(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(7)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subsection, no payment may be made to parents with respect to
any child that--
``(i) would be considered a child with special needs under
subsection (c);
``(ii) is not a citizen or resident of the United States;
and
``(iii) was adopted outside of the United States or was
brought into the United States for the purpose of being
adopted.
``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed as
prohibiting payments under this part for a child described in
subparagraph (A) that is placed in foster care subsequent to
the failure, as determined by the State, of the initial
adoption of such child by the parents described in such
subparagraph.''.
(3) Requirement for use of state savings.--Section 473(a)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673(a)), as amended by
subsection (b), is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(8) A State shall spend an amount equal to the amount of
savings (if any) in State expenditures under this part
resulting from the application of paragraph (2) on and after
the effective date of the amendment to such paragraph made by
section 4(a) of the Enhancing Family Life Act of 1999 to
provide to children or families any service (including post-
adoption services) that may be provided under this part or
part B.''.
(b) Per Capita Child Welfare Demonstration Projects.--
Section 1130(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1320a-9(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--The Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Reservation.--Of the 10 demonstration projects
authorized under this subsection for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2002, the Secretary, upon receipt of an
appropriate application, shall approve at least 3
demonstration projects in each of such fiscal years that are
designed to test a per capita approach for the successful
resolution of a foster care placement under which a private
entity contracts for a fixed amount to either restore a child
in foster care to the child's parent or parents or locate an
adoptive placement for the child.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 1999.

SEC. 103. EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT.

Title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 968]]

``PART F--ASSISTANCE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

``SEC. 480. DEFINITIONS.

``In this part:
``(1) Local educational agency.--The term `local
educational agency' has the meaning given that term in
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
``(2) Poverty line.--The term `poverty line' means the
poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and
Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section
673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C.
9902(2)) applicable to a family of the size involved.
``(3) State board.--The term `State board' means a State
Early Learning Coordinating Board established under section
481(c).
``(4) Young child.--The term `young child' means an
individual from birth through age 5.
``(5) Young child assistance activities.--The term `young
child assistance activities' means the activities described
in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of section 482(b).

``SEC. 481. ALLOTMENTS TO STATES.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make allotments
under subsection (b) to eligible States to pay for the
Federal share of the cost of enabling the States to make
grants to local collaboratives under section 482 for young
child assistance activities.
``(b) Allotment.--
``(1) In general.--From the funds appropriated under
section 484 for each fiscal year and not reserved under
subsection (i), the Secretary shall allot to each eligible
State an amount that bears the same relationship to such
funds as the total number of young children in poverty in the
State bears to the total number of young children in poverty
in all eligible States.
``(2) Young child in poverty.--In this subsection, the term
`young child in poverty' means an individual who--
``(A) is a young child; and
``(B) is a member of a family with an income below the
poverty line.
``(c) State Boards.--
``(1) In general.--In order for a State to be eligible to
obtain an allotment under this part, the chief executive
officer of the State shall establish, or designate an entity
to serve as, a State Early Learning Coordinating Board, which
shall receive the allotment and make the grants described in
section 482.
``(2) Established board.--A State board established under
paragraph (1) shall consist of the chief executive officer of
the State and members appointed by such chief executive
officer, including--
``(A) representatives of all State agencies primarily
providing services to young children in the State;
``(B) representatives of business in the State;
``(C) chief executive officers of political subdivisions in
the State;
``(D) parents of young children in the State;
``(E) officers of community organizations serving low-
income individuals, as defined by the Secretary, in the
State;
``(F) representatives of State nonprofit organizations that
represent the interests of young children in poverty, as
defined in subsection (b), in the State;
``(G) representatives of organizations providing services
to young children and the parents of young children, such as
organizations providing child care, carrying out Head Start
programs under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.),
providing services through a family resource center,
providing home visits, or providing health care services, in
the State; and
``(H) representatives of local educational agencies.
``(3) Designated board.--The chief executive officer of the
State may designate an entity to serve as the State board
under paragraph (1) if the entity includes the chief
executive officer of the State and the members described in
subparagraphs (A) through (G) of paragraph (2).
``(4) Designated state agency.--The chief executive officer
of the State shall designate a State agency that has a
representative on the State board to provide administrative
oversight concerning the use of funds made available under
this part and ensure accountability for the funds.
``(d) Application.--To be eligible to receive an allotment
under this part, a State board shall annually submit an
application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner,
and containing such information as the Secretary may require.
At a minimum, the application shall contain--
``(1) sufficient information about the entity established
or designated under subsection (c) to serve as the State
board to enable the Secretary to determine whether the entity
complies with the requirements of such subsection;
``(2) a comprehensive State plan for carrying out young
child assistance activities;
``(3) an assurance that the State board will provide such
information as the Secretary shall by regulation require on
the amount of State and local public funds expended in the
State to provide services for young children; and
``(4) an assurance that the State board shall annually
compile and submit to the Secretary information from the
reports referred to in section 482(d)(2)(F)(iii) that
describes the results referred to in section 482(d)(2)(F)(i).
``(e) Federal Share.--
``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost described
in subsection (a) shall be--
``(A) 85 percent, in the case of a State for which the
Federal medical assistance percentage (as defined in section
1905(b)) is not less than 50 percent but is less than 60
percent;
``(B) 87.5 percent, in the case of a State for which such
percentage is not less than 60 percent but is less than 70
percent; and
``(C) 90 percent, in the case of any State not described in
subparagraph (A) or (B).
``(2) State share.--
``(A) In general.--The State shall contribute the remaining
share (referred to in this paragraph as the `State share') of
the cost described in subsection (a).
``(B) Form.--The State share of the cost shall be in cash.
``(C) Sources.--The State may provide for the State share
of the cost from State or local sources, or through donations
from private entities.
``(f) State Administrative Costs.--
``(1) In general.--A State may use not more than 5 percent
of the funds made available through an allotment made under
this part to pay for a portion, not to exceed 50 percent, of
State administrative costs related to carrying out this part.
``(2) Waiver.--A State may apply to the Secretary for a
waiver of paragraph (1). The Secretary may grant the waiver
if the Secretary finds that unusual circumstances prevent the
State from complying with paragraph (1). A State that
receives such a waiver may use not more than 7.5 percent of
the funds made available through the allotment to pay for the
State administrative costs.
``(g) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall monitor the
activities of States that receive allotments under this part
to ensure compliance with the requirements of this part,
including compliance with the State plans.
``(h) Enforcement.--If the Secretary determines that a
State that has received an allotment under this part is not
complying with a requirement of this part, the Secretary
may--
``(1) provide technical assistance to the State to improve
the ability of the State to comply with the requirement;
``(2) reduce, by not less than 5 percent, an allotment made
to the State under this section, for the second determination
of noncompliance;
``(3) reduce, by not less than 25 percent, an allotment
made to the State under this section, for the third
determination of noncompliance; or
``(4) revoke the eligibility of the State to receive
allotments under this section, for the fourth or subsequent
determination of noncompliance.
``(i) Reservation of Funds.--
``(1) Technical assistance.--From the funds appropriated
under section 484 for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
reserve not more than 1 percent of the funds to pay for the
costs of providing technical assistance. The Secretary shall
use the reserved funds to enter into contracts with eligible
entities to provide technical assistance to local
collaboratives that receive grants under section 482 relating
to the functions of the local collaboratives under this part.
``(2) Research and evaluation.--
``(A) In general.--From the funds appropriated under
section 484 for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve
2 percent of the funds to pay for the costs of conducting,
through grant, contract, or interagency agreement, research
and evaluation projects regarding the young child assistance
activities funded with amounts made available in accordance
with the requirements of this part. In conducting such
projects, the Secretary shall give priority to projects that
are undertaken by independent and impartial organizations.
``(B) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this part, the Secretary shall submit a report
to Congress on the research and evaluation projects conducted
in accordance with this paragraph.

``SEC. 482. GRANTS TO LOCAL COLLABORATIVES.

``(a) In General.--A State board that receives an allotment
under section 481 shall use the funds made available through
the allotment, and the State contribution made under section
481(e)(2), to pay for the Federal and State shares of the
cost of making grants, on a competitive basis, to local
collaboratives to carry out young child assistance
activities.
``(b) Use of Funds.--A local collaborative that receives a
grant made under subsection (a)--
``(1) shall use funds made available through the grant to
provide, in a community, activities that consist of education
and supportive services, such as--
``(A) home visits for parents of young children;
``(B) services provided through community-based family
resource centers for such parents; and
``(C) collaborative pre-school efforts that link parenting
education for such parents to early childhood learning
services for young children; and

[[Page 969]]

``(2) may use funds made available through the grant--
``(A) to provide, in the community, activities that consist
of--
``(i) activities designed to strengthen the quality of
child care for young children and expand the supply of high
quality child care services for young children;
``(ii) health care services for young children, including
increasing the level of immunization for young children in
the community, providing preventive health care screening and
education, and expanding health care services in schools,
child care facilities, clinics in public housing projects (as
defined in section 3(b) of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b))), and mobile dental and vision
clinics;
``(iii) services for children with disabilities who are
young children; and
``(iv) activities designed to assist schools in providing
educational and other support services to young children, and
parents of young children, in the community, to be carried
out during extended hours when appropriate; and
``(B) to pay for the salary and expenses of the
administrator described in subsection (e)(4), in accordance
with such regulations as the Secretary shall prescribe.
``(c) Multi-Year Funding.--In making grants under this
section, a State board may make grants for grant periods of
more than 1 year to local collaboratives with demonstrated
success in carrying out young child assistance activities.
``(d) Local Collaboratives.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this section for a community, a local
collaborative shall demonstrate that the collaborative--
``(1) is able to provide, through a coordinated effort,
young child assistance activities to young children, and
parents of young children, in the community; and
``(2) includes--
``(A) all public agencies primarily providing services to
young children in the community;
``(B) businesses in the community;
``(C) representatives of the local government for the
county or other political subdivision in which the community
is located;
``(D) parents of young children in the community;
``(E) officers of community organizations serving low-
income individuals, as defined by the Secretary, in the
community;
``(F) community-based organizations providing services to
young children and the parents of young children, such as
organizations providing child care, carrying out Head Start
programs, or providing pre-kindergarten education, mental
health, or family support services; and
``(G) nonprofit organizations that serve the community and
that are described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section
501(a) of such Code.
``(e) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a local collaborative shall submit an
application to the State board at such time, in such manner,
and containing such information as the State board may
require. At a minimum, the application shall contain--
``(1) sufficient information about the entity described in
subsection (d)(2) to enable the State board to determine
whether the entity complies with the requirements of such
subsection; and
``(2) a comprehensive plan for carrying out young child
assistance activities in the community, including information
indicating--
``(A) the young child assistance activities available in
the community, as of the date of submission of the plan,
including information on efforts to coordinate the
activities;
``(B) the unmet needs of young children, and parents of
young children, in the community for young child assistance
activities;
``(C) the manner in which funds made available through the
grant will be used--
``(i) to meet the needs, including expanding and
strengthening the activities described in subparagraph (A)
and establishing additional young child assistance
activities; and
``(ii) to improve results for young children in the
community;
``(D) how the local cooperative will use at least 60
percent of the funds made available through the grant to
provide young child assistance activities to young children
and parents described in subsection (f);
``(E) the comprehensive methods that the collaborative will
use to ensure that--
``(i) each entity carrying out young child assistance
activities through the collaborative will coordinate the
activities with such activities carried out by other entities
through the collaborative; and
``(ii) the local collaborative will coordinate the
activities of the local collaborative with--

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

``(F) the manner in which the collaborative will, at such
intervals as the State board may require, submit information
to the State board to enable the State board to carry out
monitoring under section 481(g), including the manner in
which the collaborative will--
``(i) evaluate the results achieved by the collaborative
for young children and parents of young children through
activities carried out through the grant;
``(ii) evaluate how services can be more effectively
delivered to young children and the parents of young
children; and
``(iii) prepare and submit to the State board annual
reports describing the results;
``(3) an assurance that the local collaborative will comply
with the requirements of subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) of
paragraph (2), and subsection (g); and
``(4) an assurance that the local collaborative will hire
an administrator to oversee the provision of the activities
described in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of subsection (b).
``(f) Distribution.--In making grants under this section,
the State board shall ensure that at least 60 percent of the
funds made available through each grant are used to provide
the young child assistance activities to young children (and
parents of young children) who reside in school districts in
which half or more of the students receive free or reduced
price lunches under the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C.
1751 et seq.).
``(g) Local Share.--
``(1) In general.--The local collaborative shall contribute
a percentage (referred to in this subsection as the `local
share') of the cost of carrying out the young child
assistance activities.
``(2) Percentage.--The Secretary shall by regulation
specify the percentage referred to in paragraph (1).
``(3) Form.--The local share of the cost shall be in cash.
``(4) Source.--The local collaborative shall provide for
the local share of the cost through donations from private
entities.
``(5) Waiver.--The State board shall waive the requirement
of paragraph (1) for poor rural and urban areas, as defined
by the Secretary.
``(h) Monitoring.--The State board shall monitor the
activities of local collaboratives that receive grants under
this part to ensure compliance with the requirements of this
part.

``SEC. 483. SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.

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

``SEC. 484. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part--
``(1) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
``(2) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
``(3) $1,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through
2004; and
``(4) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005
and each subsequent fiscal year.''.
TITLE II--PARENT GRANTS

SEC. 201. PARENT GRANTS.

(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to provide
parents with grants for career development and retraining
after a period of child rearing.
(b) Program Authority and Method of Distribution.--
(1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under subsection
(f), the Secretary of Education (in this section referred to
as the ``Secretary'') may pay to each eligible institution
such sums as may be necessary to pay to each qualifying
parent for each academic year that the qualifying parent is
in attendance at an institution of higher education, a parent
grant, in an amount determined in accordance with subsection
(c), for each child for which the qualifying parent remains
outside the labor force.
(2) Qualifying parent.--In this section, the term
``qualifying parent'' means an individual who--
(A) is the custodial parent of a child under the age of 6;
(B) has no earned income as defined in section 32(c)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
(C) is not receiving assistance under a State program
funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or supplemental security income
benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1381 et seq.).
(3) Distribution.--Funds under this section shall be
disbursed and made available to qualifying parents in the
same manner as Federal Pell Grants are disbursed and made
available to institutions of higher education and students
under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a et seq.), except that in the
case of a parent grant awarded to a qualifying parent for
expenses incurred in obtaining a secondary school diploma or
its recognized equivalent, the Secretary shall make the grant
funds available to the qualifying parent.
(c) Amount.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amount of a
parent grant for which a qualifying parent is eligible under
this section for an academic year is equal to--
(A) in the case of a qualifying parent with an annual
income of $50,000 or less, the maximum amount of the Federal
Pell Grant awarded under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 for such year; and

[[Page 970]]

(B) in the case of a qualifying parent with an annual
income of more than $50,000 but not more than $75,000, \1/2\
of the maximum amount of the Federal Pell Grant so awarded
for such year.
(2) Special rules.--
(A) Calendar year awards.--A qualifying parent is eligible
for a parent grant under this section for each complete
calendar year the parent is outside the labor force, except
that the Secretary shall prorate the amount for which the
qualifying parent is eligible for the first year in which a
child is born if the qualifying parent is outside the labor
force for at least 4 months of the calendar year in which the
child is born.
(B) Simultaneous awards.--A qualifying parent is eligible
for a parent grant simultaneously for each child for which
the parent remains outside the labor force.
(C) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not award a qualifying
parent a parent grant for any period the parent remains
outside the labor force to pursue education with a parent
grant awarded under this section.
(d) Uses.--
(1) In general.--A parent grant awarded under this
section--
(A) shall be used not later than 15 years after the year
for which the grant is awarded; and
(B) shall be used to pay--
(i) the cost of attendance (as determined in accordance
with section 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1087ll)) at an institution of higher education (as
defined in section 481 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1088)); or
(ii) for expenses incurred in obtaining a secondary school
diploma or its recognized equivalent.
(2) Aggregation of awards.--A qualifying parent may
aggregate parent grants awarded for more than 1 year or more
than 1 child for use in a single academic year.
(3) Rollover.--A qualifying parent may use any grant funds
awarded for an academic year that are not used in the
academic year, for use in a subsequent academic year, subject
to paragraph (1)(A).
(e) Research and Evaluation.--
(1) In general.--From the amounts appropriated to carry out
this section for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
reserve 2 percent of such amounts to pay for the costs of
conducting, through grant, contract, or interagency
agreement, research and evaluation projects regarding the
parent grants awarded in accordance with the requirements of
this section. In conducting such projects, the Secretary
shall give priority to projects that are undertaken by
independent and impartial organizations.
(2) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit a
report to Congress on the research and evaluation projects
conducted in accordance with this subsection.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may
be necessary for fiscal year 2000 and each succeeding fiscal
year.
____

The Enhancing Family Life Act of 1999--Brief Description of Provisions

(Based on the 1997 Francis Boyer Lecture by Professor James Q. Wilson)

Section 1. Short Title

This Act may be cited as the ``Enhancing Family Life Act of
1999.''

Section 2. Findings

The Congressional findings support the importance of
families in society and social policy.

Title I--Assistance for Children

Section 101. ``Second Chance Homes''

The bill would provide $45 million annually to establish or
expand ``second chance'' maternity homes for unwed teenage
mothers. These are group homes where mothers live with their
children under adult supervision and strict rules while
learning good parenting skills.

Section 102. Adoption Promotion

The bill would expand the number of ``special needs''
children in foster care for which federal adoption subsidies
are available. It ``de-links'' eligibility for these
subsidies from the income level of the foster child's
biological parents. (Under current law, a foster child
determined to have special needs only qualifies for a federal
adoption subsidy if the child's birth parents are welfare-
eligible.) The subsidies would help adoptive parents meet the
particular emotional and physical challenges of troubled
children and so they can provide the children permanent
homes.
In addition, last year's ``Adoption and Safe Families Act''
authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to
grant child welfare demonstration waivers to ten states each
year. The bill would reserve three of each ten waivers to
states wishing to test ``per capita'' approaches to finding
permanent homes for children in foster care, as Kansas has
done. Under a per capita approach, states or localities
contract on a fixed sum basis with agencies to reunite foster
children with their biological families or place them with
adoptive parents. Because the agency, typically a non-profit
social service agency, receives a fixed sum per child (rather
than unlimited reimbursement of costs) the agency may settle
the child in a permanent home more quickly.

Section 103. Early Childhood Development

The bill provides $3.75 billion over five years for
collaborative early childhood development programs. Recent
research has demonstrated the importance of the earliest
years in a child's life in the child's intellectual and
emotional development. States could use the funds for home
visiting programs, parenting education, high-quality child
care, and preventive health services. States would have great
flexibility in deciding which services to provide.

Section II--``Parent Grants''

The bill would create a new education assistance program to
provide grants to parents who choose to remain with young
children. The grants would allow parents to obtain the
training, or re-training, needed to prosper and advance
careers after a period of time outside the labor force. A
custodial parent with children under the age of six and no
earned income, welfare, or SSI receipt would be eligible to
receive a benefit equivalent to the largest Pell Grant
available for that year (about $2,700 in FY 1998). The
benefit--to be called a ``Parent Grant''--could only be used
for expenses associated with post-secondary education or
completion of high school. Parents could accumulate grants
(one for each year outside of the labor market) but would be
required to use the grant within 15 years of the year for
which the grant was earned. Eligibility would be subjected to
income limits ($75,000/year maximum, subject to revision on
the basis of cost estimates). The program would be
administered by the Education Department, in parallel with
Pell Grants and other financial aid programs.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 209. A bill to prohibit States from imposing a family cap under
the program of temporary assistance to needy families; to the Committee
on Finance.

legislation to prohibit the family cap

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
prohibit States from imposing the so-called ``family cap'' as part of
their Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) programs. The
``family cap'' is a policy under which a child born to a poor family on
assistance is simply ignored when calculating the family's benefit--as
if the child, this new infant, did not exist and had no needs. More
than 20 states have imposed some version of this cap as part of their
TANF programs.
As I have said in previous debate on this subject, these children
have not asked to be conceived, and they have not asked to come into
the world. We have an elemental responsibility to them. And so states
ought not deny benefits to these children because of the actions of
their parents.
We recently received the results of an evaluation of welfare reform
in New Jersey, the first state to impose such a ``family cap.'' As it
is only one study, one should be cautious about generalizing from the
results. Still, it was striking to note according to the study, that
over the four-year observation period ``[m]embers of the experimental
group [i.e. those under a family cap] also experienced an abortion rate
that was 14 percent higher than the control group [i.e. those not under
a cap].'' Is that really the outcome that authors of the 1996 welfare
law intended? Further, the evaluation notes of the New Jersey welfare
reform effort, of which the cap as a component, that ``[w]e found no
evidence that [the program] had any systemic positive impact on
employment, employment stability, or earnings among AFDC recipients.''
That is, it did little to move welfare recipients to work, the
ostensible objective of the 1996 welfare law.
And so, with this bit of evidence to reinforce my original position,
I propose today to end the family cap, and I ask unanimous consent that
a summary of the legislation and its full text be included in the
Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 209

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF A FAMILY CAP UNDER
THE TANF PROGRAM.

(a) Prohibition.--Section 408(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(12) Ban on family cap.--A State to which a grant is made
under section 403 may not, under the State program funded
under this part, deny assistance to a family in respect of an
individual because the individual was born after the family
became eligible for or began receiving assistance under the
program.''.

[[Page 971]]

(b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(15) No tanf funds for program with family cap.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, a State
that violates section 408(a)(12) during a fiscal year shall
remit to the Secretary all funds paid to the State under this
part for the fiscal year, and no payment shall be made under
this part to a State that has in effect a program that would
be funded under this part but for a law, regulation, or
policy that is inconsistent with such section.''.
____

Family Cap Prohibition Act of 1999--Brief Description of Provisions

I. Prohibition on Imposition of a Family Cap
The bill prohibits a state from imposing a ``family cap''
as part of its Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program. Under the 1996 welfare law states are permitted to
deny additional assistance to families on TANF when another
child is born to that family and 23 states have done so in
some way. This policy, known as the ``family cap,'' would be
prohibited.
II. Penalty
A state found in violation of this policy would lose TANF
funding.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 210. A bill to establish a medical education trust fund, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

medical education trust fund act of 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that would
establish a Medical Education Trust Fund to support America's 144
accredited medical schools and 1,250 graduate medical education
teaching institutions. These institutions are national treasures; they
are the very best in the world. Yet today they find themselves in a
precarious financial situation as market forces reshape the health care
delivery system in the United States. Explicit and dedicated funding
for these institutions, which this legislation will provide, will
ensure that the United States continues to lead the world in the
quality of its health care system.
This legislation requires that the public sector, through the
Medicare and Medicaid programs, and the private sector, through an
assessment on health insurance premiums, contribute broad-based and
fair financial support.
My particular interest in this subject began in 1994, when the
Finance Committee took up the President's Health Security Act. I was
Chairman of the Committee at the time. In January of that year, I asked
Dr. Paul Marks, M.D., President of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Center in New York City, if he would arrange a ``seminar'' for me on
health care issues. He agreed, and gathered a number of medical school
deans together one morning in New York.
Early on in the meeting, one of the seminarians remarked that the
University of Minnesota might have to close its medical school. In an
instant I realized I had heard something new. Minnesota is a place
where they open medical schools, not close them. How, then, could this
be? The answer was that Minnesota, being Minnesota, was a leading state
in the growth of competitive health care markets, in which managed care
organizations try to deliver services at lower costs. In this
environment, HMOs and the like do not send patients to teaching
hospitals, absent which you cannot have a medical school.
We are in the midst of a great era of discovery in medical science.
It is certainly not a time to close medical schools. This great era of
medical discovery is occurring right here in the United States, not in
Europe like past ages of scientific discovery. And it is centered in
New York City. This heroic age of medical science started in the late
1930s. Before then, the average patient was probably as well off,
perhaps better, out of a hospital as in one. Progress from that point
sixty years ago has been remarkable. The last few decades have brought
us images of the inside of the human body based on the magnetic
resonance of bodily tissues; laser surgery; micro surgery for
reattaching limbs; and organ transplantation, among other wonders.
Physicians are now working on a gene therapy that might eventually
replace bypass surgery. I can hardly imagine what might be next.
After months of hearings and debate on the President's Health
Security Act, I became convinced that special provisions would have to
be made for medical schools, teaching hospitals, and medical research
if we were not to see this great moment in medical science suddenly
constrained. To that end, when the Committee on Finance voted 12 to 8
on July 2, 1994 to report the Health Security Act, it included a
Graduate Medical Education and Academic Health Centers Trust Fund. The
Trust Fund provided an 80 percent increase in federal funding for
academic medicine; as importantly, it represented stable, long-term
funding. While nothing came of the effort to enact universal health
care coverage, the medical education trust fund enjoyed widespread
support. An amendment by Senator Malcolm Wallop to kill the trust fund
by striking the source of its revenue--a 1.75 percent assessment on
health insurance premiums--failed on a 7-13 vote in the Finance
Committee.
I continued to press the issue in the first session of the 104th
Congress. On September 29, 1995, during Finance Committee consideration
of budget reconciliation legislation, I offered an amendment to
establish a similar trust fund. My amendment failed on a tie vote, 10
to 10. Notably, however, the House version of the reconciliation bill
did include a graduate medical education trust fund. That provision
ultimately passed both houses as part of the conference agreement,
which was subsequently vetoed by President Clinton. The budget
resolution for fiscal year 1997 as passed by Congress also appeared to
assume that a similar trust fund was to be included in the Medicare
reconciliation bill--a bill which never materialized.
The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Representative
Bill Archer, was largely responsible for the inclusion of trust fund
provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 and the budget resolution
for fiscal year 1997. He and I share a strong commitment to ensuring
the continued success of our system of medical education. Indeed,
Chairman Archer and I were both honored in 1996 to receive the American
Association of Medical Colleges' Public Service Excellence Award.
That is the history of this effort, briefly stated.
Medical education is one of America's most precious public resources.
Within our increasingly competitive health care system, it is rapidly
becoming a public good--that is, a good from which everyone benefits,
but for which no one is willing to pay. Therefore, it should be
explicitly financed with contributions from all sectors of the health
care system, not just the Medicare program as is the case today. The
fiscal pressures of a competitive health market are increasingly
closing off traditional implicit revenue sources (such as additional
payments from private payers) that have supported medical schools,
graduate medical education, and research until now. In its June, 1995
Report to Congress, the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission
(ProPAC), created to advise Congress on Medicare Hospital Insurance
(Part A) payment, summarized the situation of teaching hospitals as
follows:

As competition in the health care system intensifies, the
additional costs borne by teaching hospitals will place them
at a disadvantage relative to other facilities. The role,
scale, function, and number of these institutions
increasingly will be challenged. . . . Accelerating price
competition in the private sector . . . is reducing the
ability of teaching hospitals to obtain the higher patient
care rates from other payers that traditionally have
contributed to financing the costs associated with graduate
medical education.

ProPAC's June, 1996 Report to Congress confirmed that ``major
teaching hospitals have the dual problems of higher overall losses from
uncompensated care and less above-cost revenue from private insurers.''
The State of New York provides a good example of what is happening as
health care markets become more competitive. Effective at the end of
the 1996 calendar year, New York repealed a state law that set hospital
rates. Hospitals must now negotiate their fees with each and every
health plan in the state. Where teaching hospitals were

[[Page 972]]

once guaranteed a payment that recognized, to some degree, its higher
costs of providing services, the private sector is free to squeeze down
payments to hospitals with no such recognition. While the State of New
York operates funding pools that provide partial support for graduate
medical education and uncompensated care, it is largely up to the
teaching hospitals to try to win higher rates than other hospitals when
negotiating contracts with health plans. Some may succeed in doing so,
but most will probably not. New York's state law was unique, but the
same process of negotiation between hospitals and private health plant
takes place across the country. Who, in this context, will pay for the
higher costs of operating teaching hospitals?
It is worth mentioning that the NY state funding pools for GME were
established as a temporary, yet important source of support for GME
until Federal law--like the bill I am introducing today--can be passed
by Congress. While New York has historically recognized the value of
supporting GME through the state funding pools, this source of funding
is currently in jeopardy of not being reauthorized by the state
legislature.
It is obvious that teaching hospitals can no longer rely on higher
payments from private payers to do so. Nor should they. The
establishment of this trust fund, which explicitly reimburses teaching
hospitals for the costs of graduate medical education, will ensure that
teaching hospitals can pursue their vitally important patient care,
training, and research missions in the face of an increasingly
competitive health system.
Medical schools also face an uncertain future. There are many policy
issues that need to be examined regarding the role of medical schools
in our health system, but two threats faced by medical schools require
immediate attention. This legislation addresses both. First, many
medical schools are immediately threatened by the dire financial
condition of their affiliated teaching hospitals. Medical schools rely
on teaching hospitals to provide a place for their faculty to practice
and perform research, a place to send third and fourth-year medical
school students for training, and for some direct revenues. By
improving the financial condition of teaching hospitals, this
legislation significantly improves the outlook for medical schools.
The second immediate threat faced by medical schools stems from their
reliance on a portion of the clinical practice revenue generated by
their faculties to support their operations. As competition within the
health system intensifies and managed care proliferates, these revenues
are shrinking. This legislation provides payments to medical schools
from the Trust Fund that are designed to partially offset this loss of
revenue.
As we begin the 106th Congress, the Bipartisan Commission on the
Future of Medicare as established in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is
debating its recommendations to assure the long-term solvency and
viability of the Medicare program. One of the most important policy
discussions the Commission has undertaken centers on Medicare's role in
the funding of Graduate Medical Education. In order to remain the world
leader in graduate medical education, we must continue to maintain
Medicare's commitment to GME and to the nation's teaching hospitals. I
urge the Commission to maintain GME support through the Medicare
program in order to assure a stable, federal source of funding. Several
Commission members have raised the alarming idea of subjecting GME to
an annual appropriations process. I urge my colleagues to reject this
dangerous notion. It would be a tragedy for our medical schools and
teaching institutions. Pitting GME against other important federal
priorities would likely result in a substantial reduction in the
federal commitment to GME.
None of the foregoing is meant to suggest that the new competitive
forces reshaping health care have brought only negative results. To the
contrary, the onset of competition has had many beneficial effects, the
restraint of growth on average in health insurance premiums being the
most obvious. But as Monsignor Charles J. Fahey of Fordham warned in
testimony before the Finance Committee in 1994, we must be wary of the
``commodification of health care,'' by which he meant that health care
is not just another commodity. We can rely on competition to hold down
costs in much of the health system, but we must not allow it to bring a
premature end to this great age of medical discovery, an age made
possible by this country's exceptionally well-trained health
professionals and superior medical schools and teaching hospitals. This
legislation complements a competitive health market by providing tax-
supported funding for the public services provided by teaching
hospitals and medical schools.
Accordingly, the Medical Education Trust Fund established in the
legislation I have just reintroduced would receive funding from three
sources broadly representing the entire health care system: a 1.5
percent tax on health insurance premiums (the private sector's
contribution), Medicare and Medicaid (the latter two sources comprising
the public sector's contribution). The relative contribution from each
of these sources will be in rough proportion to the medical education
costs attributable to their respective covered populations.
Over the five years following enactment, the Medical Education Trust
Fund provides average annual payments of about $17 billion. The tax on
health insurance premiums (including self-insured health plans) raises
approximately $5 billion per year for the Trust Fund. Federal health
programs contribute about $12 billion per year to the Trust Fund: $8
billion of current Medicare graduate medical education payments and $4
billion in federal Medicaid spending.
This legislation is only a first step. It establishes the principle
that, as a public good, medical education should be supported by
dedicated, long-term Federal funding. To ensure that the United States
continues to lead the world in the quality of its medical education and
its health system as a whole, the legislation would also create a
Medical Education Advisory Commission to conduct a thorough study and
make recommendations, including the potential use of demonstration
projects, regarding the following:
Alternative and additional sources of medical education financing;
Alternative methodologies for financing medical education;
Policies designed to maintain superior research and educational
capacities in an increasingly competitive health system;
The appropriate role of medical schools in graduate medical
education; and
Policies designed to expand eligibility for graduate medical
education payments to institutions other than teaching hospitals,
including children's hospitals.
Mr. President, the services provided by this Nation's teaching
hospitals and medical schools--groundbreaking research, highly skilled
medical care, and the training of tomorrow's physicians--are vitally
important and must be protected in this time of intense economic
competition in the health system.
I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill and the text of
the bill be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 210

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Medical Education Trust Fund.
Sec. 3. Amendments to medicare program.
Sec. 4. Amendments to medicaid program.
Sec. 5. Assessments on insured and self-insured health plans.
Sec. 6. Medical Education Advisory Commission.
Sec. 7. Demonstration projects.

SEC. 2. MEDICAL EDUCATION TRUST FUND.

The Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 300 et seq.) is amended
by adding after title XXI the following new title:

[[Page 973]]

``TITLE XXII--MEDICAL EDUCATION TRUST FUND

``table of contents of title

``Sec. 2201. Establishment of Trust Fund.
``Sec. 2202. Payments to medical schools.
``Sec. 2203. Payments to teaching hospitals.

``SEC. 2201. ESTABLISHMENT OF TRUST FUND.

``(a) In General.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a fund to be known as the Medical Education
Trust Fund (in this title referred to as the `Trust Fund'),
consisting of the following accounts:
``(1) The Medical School Account.
``(2) The Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account.
``(3) The Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account.
``(4) The Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account.
``(5) The Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account.

Each such account shall consist of such amounts as are
allocated and transferred to such account under this section,
sections 1886(l) and 1936, and section 4503 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986. Amounts in the accounts of the Trust
Fund shall remain available until expended.
``(b) Expenditures From Trust Fund.--Amounts in the
accounts of the Trust Fund are available to the Secretary for
making payments under sections 2202 and 2203.
``(c) Investment.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest amounts in the accounts of the Trust Fund which the
Secretary determines are not required to meet current
withdrawals from the Trust Fund. Such investments may be made
only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States.
For such purpose, such obligations may be acquired on
original issue at the issue price, or by purchase of
outstanding obligations at the market price.
``(2) Sale of obligations.--The Secretary of the Treasury
may sell at market price any obligation acquired under
paragraph (1).
``(3) Availability of income.--Any interest derived from
obligations held in each such account, and proceeds from any
sale or redemption of such obligations, are hereby
appropriated to such account.
``(d) Monetary Gifts to Trust Fund.--There are appropriated
to the Trust Fund such amounts as may be unconditionally
donated to the Federal Government as gifts to the Trust Fund.
Such amounts shall be allocated and transferred to the
accounts described in subsection (a) in the same proportion
as the amounts in each of the accounts bears to the total
amount in all the accounts of the Trust Fund.

``SEC. 2202. PAYMENTS TO MEDICAL SCHOOLS.

``(a) Federal Payments to Medical Schools for Certain
Costs.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a medical school that in
accordance with paragraph (2) submits to the Secretary an
application for fiscal year 2000 or any subsequent fiscal
year, the Secretary shall make payments for such year to the
medical school for the purpose specified in paragraph (3).
The Secretary shall make such payments from the Medical
School Account in an amount determined in accordance with
subsection (b), and may administer the payments as a
contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.
``(2) Application for payments.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), an application for payments under such paragraph for a
fiscal year is in accordance with this paragraph if--
``(A) the medical school involved submits the application not
later than the date specified by the Secretary; and
``(B) the application is in such form, is made in such
manner, and contains such agreements, assurances, and
information as the Secretary determines to be necessary to
carry out this section.
``(3) Purpose of payments.--The purpose of payments under
paragraph (1) is to assist medical schools in maintaining and
developing quality educational programs in an increasingly
competitive health care system.
``(b) Availability of Trust Fund for Payments; Annual
Amount of Payments.--
``(1) Availability of trust fund for payments.--The
following amounts shall be available for a fiscal year for
making payments under subsection (a) from the amount
allocated and transferred to the Medical School Account under
sections 1886(l), 1936, 2201(c)(3), and 2201(d), and section
4503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986:
``(A) In the case of fiscal year 2000, $200,000,000.
``(B) In the case of fiscal year 2001, $300,000,000.
``(C) In the case of fiscal year 2002, $400,000,000.
``(D) In the case of fiscal year 2003, $500,000,000.
``(E) In the case of fiscal year 2004, $600,000,000.
``(F) In the case of each subsequent fiscal year, the
amount determined under this paragraph for the previous
fiscal year updated through the midpoint of such previous
fiscal year by the estimated percentage change in the general
health care inflation factor (as defined in subsection (d))
during the 12-month period ending at that midpoint, with
appropriate adjustments to reflect previous underestimations
or overestimations under this subparagraph in the projected
health care inflation factor.
``(2) Amount of payments for medical schools.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to the annual amount available
under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the amount of payments
required under subsection (a) to be made to a medical school
that submits to the Secretary an application for such year in
accordance with subsection (a)(2) is an amount equal to an
amount determined by the Secretary in accordance with
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Development of formula.--The Secretary shall develop
a formula for allocation of funds to medical schools under
this section consistent with the purpose described in
subsection (a)(3).
``(c) Medical School Defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term `medical school' means a school of medicine
(as defined in section 799 of the Public Health Service Act)
or a school of osteopathic medicine (as defined in such
section).
``(d) General Health Care Inflation Factor.--The term
`general health care inflation factor' means the Consumer
Price Index for Medical Services as determined by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics.

``SEC. 2203. PAYMENTS TO TEACHING HOSPITALS.

``(a) Formula Payments to Eligible Entities.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any fiscal year beginning
after September 30, 1999, the Secretary shall make payments
to each eligible entity that, in accordance with paragraph
(2), submits to the Secretary an application for such fiscal
year. Such payments shall be made from the Trust Fund, and
the total of the payments to the eligible entity for the
fiscal year shall equal the sum of the amounts determined
under subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) with respect to such
entity.
``(2) Application.--For purposes of paragraph (1), an
application shall contain such information as may be
necessary for the Secretary to make payments under such
paragraph to an eligible entity during a fiscal year. An
application shall be treated as submitted in accordance with
this paragraph if it is submitted not later than the date
specified by the Secretary, and is made in such form and
manner as the Secretary may require.
``(3) Periodic payments.--Payments under paragraph (1) to
an eligible entity for a fiscal year shall be made
periodically, at such intervals and in such amounts as the
Secretary determines to be appropriate (subject to applicable
Federal law regarding Federal payments).
``(4) Administrator of programs.--The Secretary shall carry
out responsibility under this title by acting through the
Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration.
``(5) Eligible entity.--For purposes of this title, the
term `eligible entity', with respect to any fiscal year,
means--
``(A) for payment under subsections (b) and (c), an entity
which would be eligible to receive payments for such fiscal
year under--
``(i) section 1886(d)(5)(B), if such payments had not been
terminated for discharges occurring after September 30, 1999;
``(ii) section 1886(h), if such payments had not been
terminated for cost reporting periods beginning after
September 30, 1999; or
``(iii) both sections; or
``(B) for payment under subsections (d) and (e)--
``(i) an entity which meets the requirement of subparagraph
(A); or
``(ii) an entity which the Secretary determines should be
considered an eligible entity.
``(b) Determination of Amount From Medicare Teaching
Hospital Indirect Account.--
``(1) In general.--The amount determined for an eligible
entity for a fiscal year under this subsection is the amount
equal to the applicable percentage of the total amount
allocated and transferred to the Medicare Teaching Hospital
Indirect Account under section 1886(l)(1), and subsections
(c)(3) and (d) of section 2201 for such fiscal year.
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the applicable percentage for any fiscal year is equal
to the percentage of the total payments which would have been
made to the eligible entity in such fiscal year under section
1886(d)(5)(B) if such payments had not been terminated for
discharges occurring after September 30, 1999.
``(c) Determination of Amount From Medicare Teaching
Hospital Direct Account.--
``(1) In general.--The amount determined for an eligible
entity for a fiscal year under this subsection is the amount
equal to the applicable percentage of the total amount
allocated and transferred to the Medicare Teaching Hospital
Direct Account under section 1886(l)(2), and subsections
(c)(3) and (d) of section 2201 for such fiscal year.
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the applicable percentage for any fiscal year is equal
to the percentage of the total payments which would have been
made to the eligible entity in such fiscal year under section
1886(h) if such payments had not been terminated for cost
reporting periods beginning after September 30, 1999.

[[Page 974]]

``(d) Determination of Amount From Non-Medicare Teaching
Hospital Indirect Account.--
``(1) In general.--The amount determined for an eligible
entity for a fiscal year under this subsection is the amount
equal to the applicable percentage of the total amount
allocated and transferred to the Non-Medicare Teaching
Hospital Indirect Account for such fiscal year under section
1936, subsections (c)(3) and (d) of section 2201, and section
4503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the applicable percentage for any fiscal year for an
eligible entity is equal to the percentage of the total
payments which, as determined by the Secretary, would have
been made in such fiscal year under section 1886(d)(5)(B)
if--
``(A) such payments had not been terminated for discharges
occurring after September 30, 1999; and
``(B) non-medicare patients were taken into account in lieu
of medicare patients.
``(e) Determination of Amount From Non-Medicare Teaching
Hospital Direct Account.--
``(1) In general.--The amount determined for an eligible
entity for a fiscal year under this subsection is the amount
equal to the applicable percentage of the total amount
allocated and transferred to the Non-Medicare Teaching
Hospital Direct Account for such fiscal year under section
1936, subsections (c)(3) and (d) of section 2201, and section
4503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the applicable percentage for any fiscal year for an
eligible entity is equal to the percentage of the total
payments which, as determined by the Secretary, would have
been made in such fiscal year under section 1886(h) if--
``(A) such payments had not been terminated for cost
reporting periods beginning after September 30, 1999; and
``(B) non-medicare patients were taken into account in lieu
of medicare patients.''.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO MEDICARE PROGRAM.

Section 1886 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)(5)(B), in the matter preceding clause
(i), by striking ``The Secretary shall provide'' and
inserting the following: ``For discharges occurring before
October 1, 1999, the Secretary shall provide'';
(2) in subsection (d)(11)(C), by inserting after
``paragraph (5)(B)'' ``(notwithstanding that payments under
paragraph (5)(B) are terminated for discharges occurring
after September 30, 1999)'';
(3) in subsection (h)--
(A) in paragraph (1), in the first sentence, by striking
``the Secretary shall provide'' and inserting ``the Secretary
shall, subject to paragraph (7), provide''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Limitation.--
``(A) In general.--The authority to make payments under
this subsection (other than payments made under paragraphs
(3)(D) and (6)) shall not apply with respect to--
``(i) cost reporting periods beginning after September 30,
1999; and
``(ii) any portion of a cost reporting period beginning on
or before such date which occurs after such date.
``(B) Rule of construction.--This paragraph may not be
construed as authorizing any payment under section 1861(v)
with respect to graduate medical education.''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(l) Transfers to Medical Education Trust Fund.--
``(1) Indirect costs of medical education.--
``(A) Transfer.--
``(i) In general.--From the Federal Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund, the Secretary shall, for fiscal year 2000 and
each subsequent fiscal year, transfer to the Medical
Education Trust Fund an amount equal to the amount estimated
by the Secretary under subparagraph (B).
``(ii) Allocation.--Of the amount transferred under clause
(i)--

``(I) there shall be allocated and transferred to the
Medical School Account of such Trust Fund an amount which
bears the same ratio to the total amount available under
section 2202(b)(1) for the fiscal year (reduced by the
balance in such account at the end of the preceding fiscal
year) as the amount transferred under clause (i) bears to the
total amounts transferred to such Trust Fund under title XXII
(excluding amounts transferred under subsections (c)(3) and
(d) of section 2201) for such fiscal year; and
``(II) the remainder shall be allocated and transferred to
the Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account of such Trust
Fund.

``(B) Determination of amounts.--The Secretary shall make
an estimate for each fiscal year involved of the nationwide
total of the amounts that would have been paid under
subsection (d)(5)(B) to hospitals during the fiscal year if
such payments had not been terminated for discharges
occurring after September 30, 1999.
``(2) Direct costs of medical education.--
``(A) Transfer.--
``(i) In general.--From the Federal Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance
Trust Fund, the Secretary shall, for fiscal year 2000 and
each subsequent fiscal year, transfer to the Medical
Education Trust Fund an amount equal to the amount estimated
by the Secretary under subparagraph (B).
``(ii) Allocation.--Of the amount transferred under clause
(i)--

``(B) Determination of amounts.--For each hospital, the
Secretary shall make an estimate for the fiscal year involved
of the amount that would have been paid under subsection (h)
to the hospital during the fiscal year if such payments had
not been terminated for cost reporting periods beginning
after September 30, 1999.
``(C) Allocation between funds.--In providing for a
transfer under subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year, the
Secretary shall provide for an allocation of the amounts
involved between part A and part B (and the trust funds
established under the respective parts) as reasonably
reflects the proportion of direct graduate medical education
costs of hospitals associated with the provision of services
under each respective part.''.

SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS TO MEDICAID PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``transfer of funds to accounts

``Sec. 1936. (a) Transfer of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--For fiscal year 2000 and each subsequent
fiscal year, the Secretary shall transfer to the Medical
Education Trust Fund established under title XXII an amount
equal to the amount determined under subsection (b).
``(2) Allocation.--Of the amount transferred under
paragraph (1)--
``(A) there shall be allocated and transferred to the
Medical School Account of such Trust Fund an amount which
bears the same ratio to the total amount available under
section 2202(b)(1) for the fiscal year (reduced by the
balance in such account at the end of the preceding fiscal
year) as the amount transferred under paragraph (1) bears to
the total amounts transferred to such Trust Fund (excluding
amounts transferred under subsections (c)(3) and (d) of
section 2201) for such fiscal year; and
``(B) the remainder shall be allocated and transferred to
the Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account and the
Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account of such Trust
Fund, in the same proportion as the amounts transferred to
each account under section 1886(l) relate to the total
amounts transferred under such section for such fiscal year.
``(b) Amount Determined.--
``(1) Outlays for acute medical services during preceding
fiscal year.--Beginning with fiscal year 2000, the Secretary
shall determine 5 percent of the total amount of Federal
outlays made under this title for acute medical services, as
defined in paragraph (2), for the preceding fiscal year.
``(2) Acute medical services defined.--The term `acute
medical services' means items and services described in
section 1905(a) other than the following:
``(A) Nursing facility services (as defined in section
1905(f)).
``(B) Intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded
services (as defined in section 1905(d)).
``(C) Personal care services (as described in section
1905(a)(24)).
``(D) Private duty nursing services (as referred to in
section 1905(a)(8)).
``(E) Home or community-based services furnished under a
waiver granted under subsection (c), (d), or (e) of section
1915.
``(F) Home and community care furnished to functionally
disabled elderly individuals under section 1929.
``(G) Community supported living arrangements services
under section 1930.
``(H) Case-management services (as described in section
1915(g)(2)).
``(I) Home health care services (as referred to in section
1905(a)(7)), clinic services, and rehabilitation services
that are furnished to an individual who has a condition or
disability that qualifies the individual to receive any of
the services described in a previous subparagraph.
``(J) Services furnished in an institution for mental
diseases (as defined in section 1905(i)).
``(c) Entitlement.--This section constitutes budget
authority in advance of appropriations Acts and represents
the obligation of the Federal Government to provide for the
payment to the Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect
Account, the Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account,
and the Medical School Account of amounts determined in
accordance with subsections (a) and (b).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall be effective on and after October 1, 1999.

[[Page 975]]

SEC. 5. ASSESSMENTS ON INSURED AND SELF-INSURED HEALTH PLANS.

(a) General Rule.--Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to miscellaneous excise taxes) is amended
by adding after chapter 36 the following new chapter:

``CHAPTER 37--HEALTH RELATED ASSESSMENTS

``Subchapter A. Insured and self-insured health plans.

``Subchapter A--Insured and Self-Insured Health Plans

``Sec. 4501. Health insurance and health-related administrative
services.
``Sec. 4502. Self-insured health plans.
``Sec. 4503. Transfer to accounts.
``Sec. 4504. Definitions and special rules.

``SEC. 4501. HEALTH INSURANCE AND HEALTH-RELATED
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES.

``(a) Imposition of Tax.--There is hereby imposed--
``(1) on each taxable health insurance policy, a tax equal
to 1.5 percent of the premiums received under such policy,
and
``(2) on each amount received for health-related
administrative services, a tax equal to 1.5 percent of the
amount so received.
``(b) Liability for Tax.--
``(1) Health insurance.--The tax imposed by subsection
(a)(1) shall be paid by the issuer of the policy.
``(2) Health-related administrative services.--The tax
imposed by subsection (a)(2) shall be paid by the person
providing the health-related administrative services.
``(c) Taxable Health Insurance Policy.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the term `taxable health insurance policy' means any
insurance policy providing accident or health insurance with
respect to individuals residing in the United States.
``(2) Exemption of certain policies.--The term `taxable
health insurance policy' does not include any insurance
policy if substantially all of the coverage provided under
such policy relates to--
``(A) liabilities incurred under workers' compensation
laws,
``(B) tort liabilities,
``(C) liabilities relating to ownership or use of property,
``(D) credit insurance, or
``(E) such other similar liabilities as the Secretary may
specify by regulations.
``(3) Special rule where policy provides other coverage.--
In the case of any taxable health insurance policy under
which amounts are payable other than for accident or health
coverage, in determining the amount of the tax imposed by
subsection (a)(1) on any premium paid under such policy,
there shall be excluded the amount of the charge for the
nonaccident or nonhealth coverage if--
``(A) the charge for such nonaccident or nonhealth coverage
is either separately stated in the policy, or furnished to
the policyholder in a separate statement, and
``(B) such charge is reasonable in relation to the total
charges under the policy.

In any other case, the entire amount of the premium paid
under such policy shall be subject to tax under subsection
(a)(1).
``(4) Treatment of prepaid health coverage arrangements.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any arrangement described
in subparagraph (B)--
``(i) such arrangement shall be treated as a taxable health
insurance policy,
``(ii) the payments or premiums referred to in subparagraph
(B)(i) shall be treated as premiums received for a taxable
health insurance policy, and
``(iii) the person referred to in subparagraph (B)(i) shall
be treated as the issuer.
``(B) Description of arrangements.--An arrangement is
described in this subparagraph if under such arrangement--
``(i) fixed payments or premiums are received as
consideration for any person's agreement to provide or
arrange for the provision of accident or health coverage to
residents of the United States, regardless of how such
coverage is provided or arranged to be provided, and
``(ii) substantially all of the risks of the rates of
utilization of services is assumed by such person or the
provider of such services.
``(d) Health-Related Administrative Services.--For purposes
of this section, the term `health-related administrative
services' means--
``(1) the processing of claims or performance of other
administrative services in connection with accident or health
coverage under a taxable health insurance policy if the
charge for such services is not included in the premiums
under such policy, and
``(2) processing claims, arranging for provision of
accident or health coverage, or performing other
administrative services in connection with an applicable
self-insured health plan (as defined in section 4502(c))
established or maintained by a person other than the person
performing the services.

For purposes of paragraph (1), rules similar to the rules of
subsection (c)(3) shall apply.

``SEC. 4502. SELF-INSURED HEALTH PLANS.

``(a) Imposition of Tax.--In the case of any applicable
self-insured health plan, there is hereby imposed a tax for
each month equal to 1.5 percent of the sum of--
``(1) the accident or health coverage expenditures for such
month under such plan, and
``(2) the administrative expenditures for such month under
such plan to the extent such expenditures are not subject to
tax under section 4501.

In determining the amount of expenditures under paragraph
(2), rules similar to the rules of subsection (d)(3) apply.
``(b) Liability for Tax.--
``(1) In general.--The tax imposed by subsection (a) shall
be paid by the plan sponsor.
``(2) Plan sponsor.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
term `plan sponsor' means--
``(A) the employer in the case of a plan established or
maintained by a single employer,
``(B) the employee organization in the case of a plan
established or maintained by an employee organization, or
``(C) in the case of--
``(i) a plan established or maintained by 2 or more
employers or jointly by 1 or more employers and 1 or more
employee organizations,
``(ii) a voluntary employees' beneficiary association under
section 501(c)(9), or
``(iii) any other association plan,

the association, committee, joint board of trustees, or other
similar group of representatives of the parties who establish
or maintain the plan.
``(c) Applicable Self-Insured Health Plan.--For purposes of
this section, the term `applicable self-insured health plan'
means any plan for providing accident or health coverage if
any portion of such coverage is provided other than through
an insurance policy.
``(d) Accident or Health Coverage Expenditures.--For
purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The accident or health coverage
expenditures of any applicable self-insured health plan for
any month are the aggregate expenditures paid in such month
for accident or health coverage provided under such plan to
the extent such expenditures are not subject to tax under
section 4501.
``(2) Treatment of reimbursements.--In determining accident
or health coverage expenditures during any month of any
applicable self-insured health plan, reimbursements (by
insurance or otherwise) received during such month shall be
taken into account as a reduction in accident or health
coverage expenditures.
``(3) Certain expenditures disregarded.--Paragraph (1)
shall not apply to any expenditure for the acquisition or
improvement of land or for the acquisition or improvement of
any property to be used in connection with the provision of
accident or health coverage which is subject to the allowance
under section 167, except that, for purposes of paragraph
(1), allowances under section 167 shall be considered as
expenditures.

``SEC. 4503. TRANSFER TO ACCOUNTS.

``For fiscal year 2000 and each subsequent fiscal year,
there are hereby appropriated and transferred to the Medical
Education Trust Fund under title XXII of the Social Security
Act amounts equivalent to taxes received in the Treasury
under sections 4501 and 4502, of which--
``(1) there shall be allocated and transferred to the
Medical School Account of such Trust Fund an amount which
bears the same ratio to the total amount available under
section 2202(b)(1) of such Act for the fiscal year (reduced
by the balance in such account at the end of the preceding
fiscal year) as the amount transferred to such Trust Fund
under this section bears to the total amounts transferred to
such Trust Fund (excluding amounts transferred under
subsections (c)(3) and (d) of section 2201 of such Act) for
such fiscal year; and
``(2) the remainder shall be allocated and transferred to
the Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account and the
Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account of such Trust
Fund, in the same proportion as the amounts transferred to
such account under section 1886(l) of such Act relate to the
total amounts transferred under such section for such fiscal
year.

Such amounts shall be transferred in the same manner as under
section 9601.

``SEC. 4504. DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.

``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this subchapter--
``(1) Accident or health coverage.--The term `accident or
health coverage' means any coverage which, if provided by an
insurance policy, would cause such policy to be a taxable
health insurance policy (as defined in section 4501(c)).
``(2) Insurance policy.--The term `insurance policy' means
any policy or other instrument whereby a contract of
insurance is issued, renewed, or extended.
``(3) Premium.--The term `premium' means the gross amount
of premiums and other consideration (including advance
premiums, deposits, fees, and assessments) arising from
policies issued by a person acting as the primary insurer,
adjusted for any return or additional premiums paid as a
result of endorsements, cancellations, audits, or
retrospective rating. Amounts returned where the amount is
not fixed in the contract but depends on the experience of
the insurer or the

[[Page 976]]

discretion of management shall not be included in return
premiums.
``(4) United states.--The term `United States' includes any
possession of the United States.
``(b) Treatment of Governmental Entities.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this subchapter--
``(A) the term `person' includes any governmental entity,
and
``(B) notwithstanding any other law or rule of law,
governmental entities shall not be exempt from the taxes
imposed by this subchapter except as provided in paragraph
(2).
``(2) Exempt governmental programs.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of an exempt governmental
program--
``(i) no tax shall be imposed under section 4501 on any
premium received pursuant to such program or on any amount
received for health-related administrative services pursuant
to such program, and
``(ii) no tax shall be imposed under section 4502 on any
expenditures pursuant to such program.
``(B) Exempt governmental program.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `exempt governmental program' means--
``(A) the insurance programs established by parts A and B
of title XVIII of the Social Security Act,
``(B) the medical assistance program established by title
XIX of the Social Security Act,
``(C) any program established by Federal law for providing
medical care (other than through insurance policies) to
individuals (or the spouses and dependents thereof) by reason
of such individuals being--
``(i) members of the Armed Forces of the United States, or
``(ii) veterans, and
``(D) any program established by Federal law for providing
medical care (other than through insurance policies) to
members of Indian tribes (as defined in section 4(d) of the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act).
``(c) No Cover Over to Possessions.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, no amount collected under this
subchapter shall be covered over to any possession of the
United States.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for subtitle
D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
inserting after the item relating to chapter 36 the following
new item:

``Chapter 37. Health related assessments.''
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to premiums received, and expenses
incurred, with respect to coverage for periods after
September 30, 1999.

SEC. 6. MEDICAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMISSION.

(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established an advisory
commission to be known as the Medical Education Advisory
Commission (in this section referred to as the ``Advisory
Commission'').
(b) Duties.--
(1) In general.--The Advisory Commission shall--
(A) conduct a thorough study of all matters relating to--
(i) the operation of the Medical Education Trust Fund
established under section 2201 of the Social Security Act (as
added by section 2);
(ii) alternative and additional sources of graduate medical
education funding;
(iii) alternative methodologies for compensating teaching
hospitals for graduate medical education;
(iv) policies designed to maintain superior research and
educational capacities in an increasing competitive health
system;
(v) the role of medical schools in graduate medical
education;
(vi) policies designed to expand eligibility for graduate
medical education payments to children's hospitals that
operate graduate medical education programs; and
(vii) policies designed to expand eligibility for graduate
medical education payments to institutions other than
teaching hospitals;
(B) develop recommendations, including the use of
demonstration projects, on the matters studied under
subparagraph (A) in consultation with the Secretary of Health
and Human Services and the entities described in paragraph
(2);
(C) not later than January 2001, submit an interim report
to the Committee on Finance of the Senate, the Committee on
Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services; and
(D) not later than January 2003, submit a final report to
the Committee on Finance of the Senate, the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives, and the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(2) Entities described.--The entities described in this
paragraph are--
(A) other advisory groups, including the Council on
Graduate Medical Education and the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission;
(B) interested parties, including the Association of
American Medical Colleges, the Association of Academic Health
Centers, and the American Medical Association;
(C) health care insurers, including managed care entities;
and
(D) other entities as determined by the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.
(c) Number and Appointment.--The membership of the Advisory
Commission shall include 9 individuals who are appointed to
the Advisory Commission from among individuals who are not
officers or employees of the United States. Such individuals
shall be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, and shall include individuals from each of the
following categories:
(1) Physicians who are faculty members of medical schools.
(2) Officers or employees of teaching hospitals.
(3) Officers or employees of health plans.
(4) Deans of medical schools.
(5) Such other individuals as the Secretary determines to
be appropriate.
(d) Terms.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
members of the Advisory Commission shall serve for the lesser
of the life of the Advisory Commission, or 4 years.
(2) Service beyond term.--A member of the Advisory
Commission may continue to serve after the expiration of the
term of the member until a successor is appointed.
(e) Vacancies.--If a member of the Advisory Commission does
not serve the full term applicable under subsection (d), the
individual appointed to fill the resulting vacancy shall be
appointed for the remainder of the term of the predecessor of
the individual.
(f) Chair.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall designate an individual to serve as the Chair of the
Advisory Commission.
(g) Meetings.--The Advisory Commission shall meet not less
than once during each 4-month period and shall otherwise meet
at the call of the Secretary of Health and Human Services or
the Chair.
(h) Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses.--Members of
the Advisory Commission shall receive compensation for each
day (including travel time) engaged in carrying out the
duties of the Advisory Commission. Such compensation may not
be in an amount in excess of the maximum rate of basic pay
payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section
5315 of title 5, United States Code.
(i) Staff.--
(1) Staff director.--The Advisory Commission shall, without
regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
relating to competitive service, appoint a Staff Director who
shall be paid at a rate equivalent to a rate established for
the Senior Executive Service under 5382 of title 5, United
States Code.
(2) Additional staff.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall provide to the Advisory Commission such
additional staff, information, and other assistance as may be
necessary to carry out the duties of the Advisory Commission.
(j) Termination of the Advisory Commission.--The Advisory
Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on which
the Advisory Commission submits its final report under
subsection (b)(1)(D).
(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
the purposes of this section.

SEC. 7. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall establish, by regulation, guidelines for the
establishment and operation of demonstration projects which
the Medical Education Advisory Commission recommends under
section 6(b)(1)(B).
(b) Funding.--
(1) In general.--For any fiscal year after 1999, amounts in
the Medical Education Trust Fund under title XXII of the
Social Security Act shall be available for use by the
Secretary in the establishment and operation of demonstration
projects described in subsection (a).
(2) Funds available.--
(A) Limitation.--Not more than \1/10\ of 1 percent of the
funds in such Trust Fund shall be available for the purposes
of paragraph (1).
(B) Allocation.--Amounts under paragraph (1) shall be paid
from the accounts established under paragraphs (2) through
(5) of section 2201(a) of the Social Security Act, in the
same proportion as the amounts transferred to such accounts
bears to the total of amounts transferred to all 4 such
accounts for such fiscal year.
(c) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
to authorize any change in the payment methodology for
teaching hospitals and medical schools established by the
amendments made by this Act.
____

Summary of the Medical Education Trust Fund Act of 1999

overview

The legislation establishes a Medical Education Trust Fund
to support America's 144 medical schools and 1,250 graduate
medical education teaching institutions. These institutions
are in a precarious financial situation as market forces
reshape the health care delivery system. Explicit and
dedicated funding for these institutions will guarantee that
the United States continues to lead the world in the quality
of its health care system.

[[Page 977]]

The Medical Education Trust Fund Act of 1999 recognizes the
need to begin moving away from existing medical education
payment policies. Funding would be provided for demonstration
projects and alternative payment methods, but permanent
policy changes would await a report from a new Medical
Education Advisory Commission established by the bill. The
primary and immediate purpose of the legislation is to
establish as Federal policy that medical education is a
public good which should be supported by all sectors of the
health care system.
To ensure that the burden of financing medical education is
shared equitably by all sectors, the Medical Education Trust
Fund will receive funding from three sources: a 1.5 percent
assessment on health insurance premiums (the private sector's
contribution), Medicare, and Medicaid (the public sector's
contribution). The relative contribution from each of these
sources is in rough proportion to the medical education costs
attributable to their respective covered populations.
Over the five years following enactment, the Medical
Education Trust Fund will provide average annual payments of
about $17 billion, roughly doubling federal funding for
medical education. The assessment on health insurance
premiums (including self-insured health plans) contributes
approximately $5 billion per year to the Trust Fund. Federal
health programs contribute about $12 billion per year to the
Trust Fund: $8 billion in Medicare graduate medical education
payments and $4 billion in federal Medicaid spending.

ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL TRUST FUND REVENUE BY SOURCE, FIRST FIVE YEARS
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5% assessment Medicare Medicaid Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 8 4 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERIM PAYMENT METHODOLOGIES

Payments to medical schools

Medical schools rely on a portion of the clinical practice
revenue generated by their faculties to support their
operations. As competition within the health system
intensifies and managed care proliferates, these revenues are
being constrained. Payments to medical schools from the Trust
Fund are designed to partially offset this loss of revenue.
Initially, these payments will be based upon an interim
methodology developed by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services.

Payments to teaching hospitals

To cover the costs of education, teaching hospitals have
traditionally charged higher rates than other hospitals. As
private payers become increasingly unwilling to pay these
higher rates, the future of these important institutions, and
the patient care, training, and research they provide, is
placed at risk. Payments from the Trust Fund reimburse
teaching hospitals for both the direct \1\ and indirect \2\
costs of graduate medical education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Footnotes at end of summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments for direct costs are based on the actual costs of
employing medical residents. Payments for indirect costs are
based on the number of patients cared for in each hospital
and the severity of their illnesses as well as a measure of
the teaching load in that hospital.\3\ For the purposes of
payments to teaching hospitals, the allocation of Medicare
funds is based on the number of Medicare patients in each
hospital; the allocation of the tax revenue and Medicaid
funds is based on the number of non-Medicare patients in each
hospital.

MEDICAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMISSION

The legislation also establishes a Medical Education
Advisory Commission to conduct a study and make
recommendations, including the potential use of demonstration
projects, regarding the following: operations of the Medical
Education Trust Fund; alternative and additional sources of
medical education financing; alternative methodologies for
distributing medical education payments; policies designed to
maintain superior research and education capacities in an
increasingly competitive health system; the role of medical
schools in graduate medical education; and policies designed
to expand, eligibility for graduate medical education
payments to institutions other than teaching hospitals,
including children's hospitals.
The Commission, comprised of nine individuals appointed by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, will be required
to issue an interim report no later than January 1, 2001, and
a final report no later than January 1, 2003.

Footnotes

\1\ Medical residents' salaries are the primary direct cost.
\2\ These indirect costs include the cost of treating more
seriously ill patients and the costs of additional tests that
may be ordered by medical residents.
\3\ The legislation will use Medicare's measure of teaching
load as an interim measure.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Roth, Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Boxer,
Mr. Bryan, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Murkowski,
Mr. Robb, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 211. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make
permanent the exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

employee educational assistance act

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
permanently extend the tax exclusion for employer-provided educational
assistance under section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code. This bill,
cosponsored by Senator Roth, the distinguished chairman of the Senate
Finance Committee, ensures that employees may receive up to $5,250
annually in tuition reimbursements or similar educational benefits for
both undergraduate and graduate education from their employers on a
tax-free basis.
The provision enjoys virtually unanimous support in the Senate. In
the 105th Congress, every member of the Committee on Finance sponsored
legislation to make this provision permanent, and the full Senate twice
voted to support it--in 1997 and again in 1998.
The provision enjoys equally broad support in the business, labor,
and education communities. I have received letters of support from
groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers, from labor
and employee groups such as the College and University Personnel
Association, and from professional groups such as the National Society
of Professional Engineers.
Why, then, is it not a permanent feature of the Tax Code today?
Because, for reasons this Senator cannot understand, the provision has
been opposed in the House.
Section 127 should be permanent because it is one of the most
successful education initiatives that the Federal Government has ever
undertaken. Approximately one million persons benefits from this
provision every year. And they benefit in the most auspicious of
circumstances. An employer recognizes that the worker is capable of
doing work at higher levels and skills and says, ``Will you go to
school and get a degree so we can put you in a higher position than you
have now--and with better compensation?'' Unlike so many of our job
training programs that have depended on the hope that in the aftermath
of the training there will be a job, here you have a situation where
the worker already has a job and the employer agrees that the worker
should improve his or her situation in a manner that is beneficial to
all concerned.
And the program works efficiently. It administers itself. It has no
bureaucracy--there is no bureau in the Department of Education for
employer-provided educational assistance, no titles, no confirmations,
no assistant secretaries. There is nothing except the individual plan
of an employer for the benefit of its employees.
Since its inception in 1979, section 127 has enabled millions of
workers to advance their education and improve their job skills without
incurring additional taxes and a reduction in take-home pay. As one
example of the reach of this provisions, IBM, a key New York employer,
provides education assistance benefits worth millions of dollars to
more than 4,000 participants a year.
Without section 127, workers will find that the additional taxes or
reduction in take-home pay impose a significant, even prohibitive,
financial obstacle to further education. For example, an unmarried
clerical worker pursuing a college diploma who has income of $21,000 in
1999 ($10.50 per hour) and who received tuition reimbursement for two
semesters of night courses--perhaps worth $4,000--wil owe additional
Federal income and payroll taxes of $906 on this educational
assistance.
And the provision makes an important contribution to simplicity in
the tax law. Absent section 127, a worker receiving educational
benefits from an employer is taxed on the value of the education
received, unless the education is directly related to the worker's
current job and not remedial. Thus, the worker would be subject to

[[Page 978]]

tax if the education either qualifies him or her for a new job, or is
necessary to meet the minimum educational requirements for the current
job. Workers and employers--as well as the IRS for matters in audit--
must carefully review the facts of each situation and judge whether the
education is taxable under these rules, and employers are subject to
penalties if they fail to properly adjust wage withholding for
employees who receive taxable education. More work for tax advisors.
Permanent reinstatement of section 127 will allow workers who receive,
and employers who provide, education assistance to do so without such
complexity.
Section 127 has also helped to improve the quality of America's
public education system at a fraction of the cost of direct-aid
programs. A survey by the National Education Association a few years
ago found that almost half of all American public schools systems
provide tuition assistance to teachers seeking advanced training and
degrees. This has enabled thousands of public schools teachers to
obtain advanced degrees, enhancing the quality of instruction in our
schools.
A well-trained and educated work force is a key to our Nation's
competitiveness in the global economy of the 21st century. Pressures
from international competition and technological change require
constant education and retraining to maintain and strengthen American
industry's competitive position. Alan Greenspan, the esteemed Chairman
of the Federal Reserve System's Board of Governors, remarked at
Syracuse University in New York in December, 1997 that:

Our business and workers are confronting a dynamic set of
forces that will influence our nations' ability to compete
worldwide in the years ahead. Our success in preparing
workers and managers to harness those forces will be an
important element in the outcome.
. . . America's prospects for economic growth will depend
greatly on our capacity to develop and to apply new
technology.
[A]n increasing number of workers are facing the likelihood
that they will need retooling during their careers. The
notion that formal degree programs at any level can be
crafted to fully support the requirements of one's lifework
is being challenged. As a result, education is increasingly
becoming a lifelong activity; businesses are now looking for
employees who are prepared to continue learning. . . .

Section 127 has an important, perhaps vital, role to play in this
regard. It permits employees to adapt and retrain without incurring
additional tax liabilities and a reduction in take-home pay. By
removing the tax burden from workers seeking education and retraining,
section 127 helps to maintain American workers as the most productive
in the industrialized and developing world.
Indeed, recent evidence released by the Census Bureau demonstrates
that the earnings gap between individuals with a college degree and
those with only a high school education continues to grow. Those who
hold bachelor's degrees on average made $40,478 last year, compared
with $22,895 earned by the average high school graduate. In other
terms, college graduates now earn 76 percent more than their
counterparts with less education, up significantly from 57 percent in
1975.
Despite efforts by the Senate, the most recent extension of section
127 excluded graduate level education. This was a mistake.
Historically, one quarter of the individuals who have used section 127
went to graduate schools. Ask major employees about their employee
training and they will say nothing is more helpful than being able to
send a promising young person, or middle management person, to a
graduate school to learn a new field that has developed since that
person acquired his or her education. As Dr. Greenspan stated,

. . . education, especially to enhance advanced skills, is
so vital to the future growth of our economy.

By eliminating graduate level education from section 127, we impose a
tax increase on many citizens who work and go to graduate school at the
same time. But not all of them. Only the ones whose education does not
directly relate to their current jobs. For these unlucky persons, we
have erected a barrier to their upward mobility. Who are these people?
Perhaps an engineer seeking a master's degree in geology to enter the
field of environmental science, or a bank teller seeking an MPA in
accounting, or a production line worker seeking an MBA in management.
Simple equity among taxpayers demands that section 127 be made
permanent. Contrast each of the above examples with the following: The
environmental geologist seeking a master's in geology, the bank
accountant seeking an MPA, and the management trainee seeking an MBA;
each of these persons could qualify for tax-free education, whereas
their colleagues would not. There is no justification for this
difference in tax treatment.
Thus, section 127 removes a tax bias against lesser-skilled workers.
The tax bias arises because lesser-skilled workers have narrower job
descriptions, and a correspondingly greater difficulty proving that
educational expenses directly relate to their current jobs. Less-
skilled workers are in greater need of remedial and basic education.
And they are the ones least able to afford the imposition of tax on
their educational benefits. As noted by Senator Packwood in a 1978
Finance Committee hearing on this provision, employer-provided
education is not taxable:

. . . so long as it is related to the job, but the trouble
is, once you get higher in a corporation, more things seem to
be related to the job. If you are a vice president in charge
of marketing for Mobil Oil or General Motors, you could have
a wide expanse of educational experiences that would be job
related. . . . but for the poor devil in private enterprise
who dropped out of school at 16 and is working on a
production job and would like to move out of that, all you
can train him for is to do the production job better. . . .
[T]he lower skilled, the minorities, the less educated, are
also the ones circumscribed by law.

This has been confirmed in practice. A study published by the National
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in December, 1995
found that the average section 127 recipient earned less than $33,000,
and a Coopers & Lybrand study found that participation rates decline as
salary levels increase.
I hope that Congress will recognize the importance of this provision,
and enact it permanently. Our on-again, off-again approach to section
127 has created great practical difficulties for the intended
beneficiaries. Workers cannot plan sensibly for their educational
goals, not knowing the extent to which accepting educational assistance
may reduce their take-home pay. As for employers, the fits and starts
of the legislative history of section 127 have been a serious
administrative nuisance: there have been nine extensions of this
provision since 1978, of which eight were retroactive. If section 127
is in force, then there is no need to withhold taxes on educational
benefits provided; if not, the job-relatedness of the educational
assistance must be ascertained, a value assigned, and withholding
adjusted accordingly. Uncertainty about the program's continuance has
magnified this burden, and discouraged employers from providing
educational benefits.
For example, section 127 expired for a time after 1994. During 1995,
employers did not know whether to withhold taxes or curtail their
educational assistance programs. Workers did not know whether they
would face large tax bills, and possible penalties and interest, and
thus faced considerable risk in planning for their education.
Constituents who called my office reported that they were taking fewer
courses--or no courses--due to this uncertainty. And when we failed to
extend the provision by the end of 1995, employers had to guess as to
how to report their worker's incomes on the W-2 tax statements, and
employees had to guess whether to pay tax on the benefits they
received. In the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, we finally
extended the provision retroactively to the beginning of 1995. As a
result, we had to instruct the IRS to issue guidance expeditiously to
employers and workers on how to obtain refunds.
The current provision expires with respect to courses beginning after
May 31, 2000. Will we subject our constituents, once again, to similar
confusion? The legislation I introduce today would

[[Page 979]]

restore certainty to section 127 by maintaining it on a permanent basis
for all education.
Encouraging workers to further their education and to improve their
job skills is an important national priority. It is crucial for
preserving our competitive position in the global economy. Permitting
employees to receive educational assistance on a tax-free basis,
without incurring significant cuts in take-home pay, is a demonstrated,
cost-effective means for achieving these objectives. This is a
wonderful piece of unobtrusive social policy. And it simplifies our tax
system for one million workers and their employers.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record, along with two letters, representative of many,
I have received in support of the bill.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 211

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 ``Employee Educational
Assistance Act''.

SEC. 2. EMPLOYER-PROVIDED EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

(a) Permanent Extension.--Section 127 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exclusion for educational
assistance programs) is amended by striking subsection (d)
and by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d).
(b) Repeal of Limitation on Graduate Education.--The last
sentence of section 127(c)(1) of such Code is amended by
striking ``, and such term also does not include any payment
for, or the provision of any benefits with respect to, any
graduate level course of a kind normally taken by an
individual pursuing a program leading to a law, business,
medical, or other advanced academic or professional degree''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) Extension.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall
apply with respect to expenses relating to courses beginning
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Graduate education.--The amendment made by subsection
(b) shall apply with respect to expenses relating to courses
beginning after December 31, 1998.
____

National Association

of Manufacturers,

Washington, DC, January 19, 1999.
Hon. Daniel P. Moynihan,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Finance, Russell Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Moynihan: On behalf of the National
Association of Manufacturers (NAM), representing 18 million
working men and women in 14,000 small, medium and large
businesses across America, I want to commend you for your
willingness to introduce and sponsor S. 127 in the 106th
Congress. As you know, Section 127 of the Internal Revenue
Code enables employers to provide tax-free tuition assistance
for undergraduate education through 2000. The NAM supports
your efforts to provide not only a permanent extension of
Section 127, but the restoration of graduate-level assistance
as well.
The NAM strongly believes that education and lifelong
learning are the key to continued economic growth and worker
prosperity. Last week, NAM President Jerry Jasinowski
participated in Vice President Gore's Summit on Skills for
21st Century and urged that government, labor, academic and
business leaders all take greater responsibility in
encouraging a stronger focus on lifelong learning.
Manufacturers have discovered the importance of education and
lifelong learning first hand. For instance, raising the
education level of workers by just one year raises
manufacturing productivity by 8.5 percent and each additional
year of post-high school education is worth 5-15 percent in
increased earnings to the worker. Despite the fact that
roughly 95 percent of manufacturers provide some form of
worker training and nearly half spend at least 2 percent of
payroll, 9 in 10 report a serious skills shortage. In short,
our economy will only continue to grow if our workers are
armed with the skills they need to thrive in tomorrow's
workplace. Permanent extension of Section 127 for both
undergraduate and graduate-level assistance will help do just
that.
Again, thank you for your support for this important issue.
The NAM looks forward to working with you and Chairman Roth
in developing bipartisan support for S. 127. Please feel free
to contact me at (202) 637-3133 if the NAM can be of further
assistance.
Sincerely,
Sandra Boyd,
Assistant Vice President.
____

National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities,
Washington, DC, January 13, 1999.
Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Moynihan: I am writing to offer my sincere
appreciation for your sponsorship of legislation that will
permanently extend IRC Sec. 127 for both undergraduate and
graduate courses. On behalf of over 900 independent colleges
and universities across the country that make up the National
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU),
I thank you for your continued commitment to encouraging a
well-educated and properly-trained workforce through the
permanent extension of this tax credit.
As you know, this important provision of the tax code
allows employees to exclude from their income the first
$5,250 of educational benefits paid by their employers. While
the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 temporarily extended the
benefit for undergraduate courses, graduate courses are
currently not included in the Sec. 127 extension that is set
to expire on May 31, 2000. Legislation that will permanently
extend the credit for both graduate and undergraduate courses
is absolutely critical.
Employees benefit from Sec. 127 by keeping current in
rapidly advancing fields, improving basic skills, or, in
extreme cases, learning new skills. Sec. 127 also serves as
an effective means for entry level employees to move from low
wage jobs to higher wage jobs while remaining in the
workforce.
Sec. 127 has always received strong support in both the
House and Senate, and as a time-tested initiative, it ought
to be included in any tax vehicle that comes before the 106th
Congress. NAICU looks forward to working with you and the
other supporters of this legislation to move the bill
forward.
Again thank you for your continued efforts on this
important matter.
Sincerely,
David L. Warren, President.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
S. 212. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the economic activity credit for Puerto Rico, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
S. 213. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal
the limitation of the cover over of tax on distilled spirits, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
S. 214. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the research and development tax credit to research in the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico and the possessions of the United States; to the
Committee on Finance.
S. 215. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to
increase the allotments for territories under the State Children's
Health Insurance Program; to the Committee on Finance.

PUERTO RICO LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my
distinguished colleague from New York, Mr. Schumer, to introduce three
tax measures designed to strengthen our commitment to enhancing the
prospects for long-term economic growth in the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, and a fourth piece of legislation to ensure fair funding for its
Children's Health Insurance Program.
Twice this decade, Congress has imposed significant tax increases on
companies doing business in Puerto Rico. Those tax increases in 1993
and 1996, agreed to in the context of broader deficit reduction and
minimum wage legislation, substantially altered the economic
relationship between the United States and the possessions. The
legislation I introduce today will address several of the economic
concerns caused by those tax increases and restore incentives for
employment, investment, and business opportunities.
Federal tax incentives for economic activity in Puerto Rico are
nearly as old as the income tax itself. Under the Revenue Act of 1921,
U.S. corporations that met two gross income tests were deemed
``possessions corporations'' exempt from tax on all income derived from
sources outside the United States. The possessions corporation
exemption remained unchanged until 1976. Section 936 of the Internal
Revenue Code, added by the Tax Reform Act of 1976, maintained the
exemption for income derived by U.S. corporations from operations in a
possession. It also exempted from tax the dividends remitted by a
possessions corporation to its U.S. parent. However, to prevent the
avoidance of tax on investments in foreign countries by possessions
corporations, the

[[Page 980]]

1976 Tax Reform Act eliminated the exemption for income derived outside
the possessions.
In 1993, Congress imposed significant limitations on Section 936. The
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 subjected Section 936 to two
alternative limitations (the taxpayer may choose which limitation
applies). One limitation is based on factors that reflect the
corporation's economic activity in the possessions. The other
limitation is based on a percentage of the credit that would be
allowable under prior-law rules. The staff of the Joint Tax Committee
estimated that the 1993 Act changes would raise $3.75 billion over five
years.
While Congress substantially limited tax incentives for companies
doing business in Puerto Rico in 1993, the Small Business Job
Protection Act of 1996 effectively repealed remaining federal tax
incentives, subject to a 10-year transition rule for taxpayers with
existing investments in Puerto Rico. The Joint Tax Committee staff
estimated the 1996 changes would raise $10.5 billion over ten years.
In committee report language accompanying the 1976 Act, Congress
recognized that the Federal government imposes upon the possessions
various requirements, such as minimum wage requirements and
requirements to use U.S. flag ships in transporting goods between the
United States and various possessions, that substantially increase the
labor, transportation and other costs of establishing business
operations in Puerto Rico. In the 1990s, in light of trade agreements
such as NAFTA and increased economic competition from low-wage
Caribbean countries, these concerns are particularly acute.
Traditionally, Puerto Rico has been excluded from or underfinanced in
many federal programs because, it has been argued, the island does not
pay income taxes to the Federal government. For example, Puerto Rico
has only minimal Federal participation in the Medicaid program. In
1998, Puerto Rico's Medicaid program received approximately $170
million in federal funds, whereas it could have received approximately
$500 million if it were treated as a state. Clearly, Congress should
not adopt a double standard of taxing Puerto Rico's economic activity
while denying funding for federal programs.
Mr. President, the first of the bills I introduce today, while not
designed to reinstate prior law, seeks to build on the temporary wage
credit that is currently provided in the Internal Revenue Code. The
bill removes provisions that limit, in taxable years beginning after
2001, the aggregate taxable income taken into account in determining
the amount of the credit. Employers would generally be eligible for a
tax credit equal to 60 percent of wages and fringe benefit expenses for
employees located in Puerto Rico. New as well as existing employers
would be rewarded for providing local jobs. Instead of expiring at the
end of 2005, the credit would terminate three years later for tax years
starting after 2008. Thus, businesses would have a 10 year period in
which to take advantage of these incentives.
A second proposal addresses the inequitable treatment of Puerto Rico
under the tax credit for increasing research activities (the R&D tax
credit). The R&D credit has never applied to qualified research
conducted in Puerto Rico and the other U.S. possessions. Until
recently, U.S. companies paid no taxes on Puerto Rico source income. As
a result, there were no tax consequences to Puerto Rico's exclusion
from the R&D credit. With the phasing out of section 936, applying the
R&D credit to research expenditures in Puerto Rico has become a matter
of fairness, and this legislation would ensure eligibility for
companies operating in the possessions. The Government of Puerto Rico
has made research and development a centerpiece of its new economic
model, and Puerto Rico's 1998 Tax Incentives Act created a deduction
for research and development expenses incurred for new or improved
products or industrial processes. While the immediate cost of extending
the R&D credit to Puerto Rico is minimal (in 1998, the Joint Tax
Committee estimated the total five year revenue loss at $4 million),
the long term benefits for Puerto Rico's diversifying economy could be
significant.
The third bill addresses a provision of the tax law a portion of
which expired on September 30, 1998. The Puerto Rican Federal Relations
Act and the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands mandate that all
federal collections on insular products be transferred (``covered-
over'') to those unincorporated jurisdictions of our Nation. Further,
the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act provides that collections on
all imported rum be transferred to the treasuries of Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands. In 1984, because of a dispute concerning the use of
the tax cover-over mechanism in Puerto Rico, the cover-over was limited
to an amount of $10.50 per gallon tax on rum, rather than the full
$13.50 per gallon tax. The disputed practice was discontinued many
years ago. In 1993, Congress enacted a temporary increase in the rum
cover-over, to $11.30, effective for five years. That provision expired
on September 30, 1998, and the rum cover-over dropped back to $10.50.
The legislation would restore the cover-over to the full amount of the
excise tax collected on rum ($13.50 per proof gallon), as mandated in
the basic laws regarding those jurisdictions and in the Caribbean Basin
Initiative. Last September, the Congressional Budget Office estimated
such a proposal would cost $350 million over 5 years and $700 million
over 10 years.
Additionally, the proposal provides that, for a five-year period, 50
cents per gallon of the cover-over to Puerto Rico would be further
transferred to the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust. The Conservation
Trust, created for the protection of the natural resources and
environmental beauty of Puerto Rico, was established by the Department
of the Interior and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1968. The Trust
was initially funded through an oil import fee. More recently, it was
primarily financed through Section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code.
The Trust lost more than 80 percent of its funding as a consequence of
the decision to phase-out section 936 and eliminate the Qualified
Possession Source Investment Income provision in the tax code. The
proposal to transfer a portion of the restored cover-over for five
years to capitalize the Trust is projected to result in a permanent
endowment.
Lastly, I introduce a bill to provide sufficient funding for Puerto
Rico and the Territories' Children's Health Insurance Programs (CHIP).
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 established CHIP as a grant to states
to cover uninsured low-income children. We provided approximately $20
billion in the first five years. The original allocation formula would
have provided only 0.25 percent of the funding to Puerto Rico and the
Territories.
Recognizing that this allocation provided insufficient funding for
CHIP programs in Puerto Rico and the Territories, Congress increased
their allotments by $32 million in the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1999. However, this
increase was provided for Fiscal Year 1999 only.
This bill would increase the allotments for Puerto Rico and the
Territories for future years such that funding would equal about one
percent of the total grant funding. Puerto Rico and the Territories
account for about 1.52 percent of the nation's population. This would
increase funding in Fiscal Year 2000 to $34.2 million. I urge my
colleagues' support for this modest but significant legislation.
In an era of open borders, expanding trade, and increasingly
interlinked economic ties, the United States should not punish Puerto
Rico by selectively applying some laws while denying the benefits of
others. Economic conditions in Puerto Rico warrant special
consideration. While the United States is enjoying the benefits of an
historically unprecedented period of economic expansion, unemployment
among Puerto Rico's 3.5 million inhabitants remains high at 12.5
percent. The needs of Puerto Rico, and the importance of this
provision, were magnified by the devastation recently

[[Page 981]]

caused by Hurricane Georges. Mr. President, now is the time to
reinforce our close economic relationship with Puerto Rico. I hope my
colleagues in the Senate will join me in working toward swift passage
of these measures.
Finally, Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
four measures be printed in full in the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 212

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

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

SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS OF PUERTO RICO ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
CREDIT.

(a) Corporations Eligible To Claim Credit.--Section
30A(a)(2) (defining qualified domestic corporation) is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) Qualified domestic corporation.--For purposes of
paragraph (1)--
``(A) In general.--A domestic corporation shall be treated
as a qualified domestic corporation for a taxable year if it
is actively conducting within Puerto Rico during the taxable
year--
``(i) a line of business with respect to which the domestic
corporation is an existing credit claimant under section
936(j)(9), or
``(ii) an eligible line of business not described in clause
(i).
``(B) Limitation to lines of business.--A domestic
corporation shall be treated as a qualified domestic
corporation under subparagraph (A) only with respect to the
lines of business described in subparagraph (A) which it is
actively conducting in Puerto Rico during the taxable year.
``(C) Exception for corporations electing reduced credit.--
A domestic corporation shall not be treated as a qualified
domestic corporation if such corporation (or any predecessor)
had an election in effect under section 936(a)(4)(B)(iii) for
any taxable year beginning after December 31, 1996.''
(b) Application on Separate Line of Business Basis;
Eligible Line of Business.--Section 30A is amended by
redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h) and by
inserting after subsection (f) the following new subsection:
``(g) Application on Line of Business Basis; Eligible Lines
of Business.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Application to separate line of business.--
``(A) In general.--In determining the amount of the credit
under subsection (a), this section shall be applied
separately with respect to each substantial line of business
of the qualified domestic corporation.
``(B) Exceptions for existing credit claimant.--This
paragraph shall not apply to a substantial line of business
with respect to which the qualified domestic corporation is
an existing credit claimant under section 936(j)(9).
``(C) Allocation.--The Secretary shall prescribe rules
necessary to carry out the purposes of this paragraph,
including rules--
``(i) for the allocation of items of income, gain,
deduction, and loss for purposes of determining taxable
income under subsection (a), and
``(ii) for the allocation of wages, fringe benefit
expenses, and depreciation allowances for purposes of
applying the limitations under subsection (d).
``(2) Eligible line of business.--The term `eligible line
of business' means a substantial line of business in any of
the following trades or businesses:
``(A) Manufacturing.
``(B) Agriculture.
``(C) Forestry.
``(D) Fishing.
``(3) Substantial line of business.--For purposes of this
subsection, the determination of whether a line of business
is a substantial line of business shall be determined by
reference to 2-digit codes under the North American Industry
Classification System (62 Fed. Reg. 17288 et seq., formerly
known as `SIC codes').''
(c) Repeal of Base Period Cap.--
(1) In general.--Section 30A(a)(1) (relating to allowance
of credit) is amended by striking the last sentence.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 30A(e)(1) is amended by
inserting ``but not including subsection (j)(3)(A)(ii)
thereof'' after ``thereunder''.
(d) Application of Credit.--Section 30A(h) (relating to
applicability of section), as redesignated by subsection (b),
is amended by striking ``January 1, 2006'' and inserting
``January 1, 2009''.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 30A(b) is amended by striking ``within a
possession'' each place it appears and inserting ``within
Puerto Rico''.
(2) Section 30A(d) is amended by striking ``possession''
each place it appears.
(3) Section 30A(f) is amended to read as follows:
``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified income taxes.--The qualified income taxes
for any taxable year allocable to nonsheltered income shall
be determined in the same manner as under section 936(i)(3).
``(2) Qualified wages.--The qualified wages for any taxable
year shall be determined in the same manner as under section
936(i)(1).
``(3) Other terms.--Any term used in this section which is
also used in section 936 shall have the same meaning given
such term by section 936.''
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1998.

SEC. 3. COMPARABLE TREATMENT FOR OTHER ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
CREDIT.

(a) Corporations Eligible To Claim Credit.--Section
936(j)(2)(A) (relating to economic activity credit) is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) Economic activity credit.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of a domestic corporation
which, during the taxable year, is actively conducting within
a possession other than Puerto Rico--

``(I) a line of business with respect to which the domestic
corporation is an existing credit claimant under paragraph
(9), or
``(II) an eligible line of business not described in
subclause (I),

the credit determined under subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be
allowed for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1995,
and before January 1, 2002.
``(ii) Limitation to lines of business.--Clause (i) shall
only apply with respect to the lines of business described in
clause (i) which the domestic corporation is actively
conducting in a possession other than Puerto Rico during the
taxable year.
``(iii) Exception for corporations electing reduced
credit.--Clause (i) shall not apply to a domestic corporation
if such corporation (or any predecessor) had an election in
effect under subsection (a)(4)(B)(iii) for any taxable year
beginning after December 31, 1996.''
(b) Application on Separate Line of Business Basis;
Eligible Line of Business.--
(1) In general.--Section 936(j) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(11) Application on line of business basis; eligible
lines of business.--For purposes of this section--
``(A) Application to separate line of business.--
``(i) In general.--In determining the amount of the credit
under subsection (a)(1)(A) for a corporation to which
paragraph (2)(A) applies, this section shall be applied
separately with respect to each substantial line of business
of the corporation.
``(ii) Exceptions for existing credit claimant.--This
paragraph shall not apply to a line of business with respect
to which the qualified domestic corporation is an existing
credit claimant under paragraph (9).
``(iii) Allocation.--The Secretary shall prescribe rules
necessary to carry out the purposes of this subparagraph,
including rules--

``(I) for the allocation of items of income, gain,
deduction, and loss for purposes of determining taxable
income under subsection (a)(1)(A), and
``(II) for the allocation of wages, fringe benefit
expenses, and depreciation allowances for purposes of
applying the limitations under subsection (a)(4)(A).

``(B) Eligible line of business.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `eligible line of business' means a
substantial line of business in any of the following trades
or businesses:
``(i) Manufacturing.
``(ii) Agriculture.
``(iii) Forestry.
``(iv) Fishing.''
(2) New lines of business.--Section 936(j)(9)(B) is amended
to read as follows:
``(B) New lines of business.--A corporation shall not be
treated as an existing credit claimant with respect to any
substantial new line of business which is added after October
13, 1995, unless such addition is pursuant to an acquisition
described in subparagraph (A)(ii).''
(3) Separate lines of business.--Section 936(j), as amended
by paragraph (1), is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(12) Substantial line of business.--For purposes of this
subsection (other than paragraph (9)(B) thereof), the
determination of whether a line of business is a substantial
line of business shall be determined by reference to 2-digit
codes under the North American Industry Classification System
(62 Fed. Reg. 17288 et seq., formerly known as `SIC
codes').''
(c) Repeal of Base Period Cap for Economic Activity
Credit.--
(1) In general.--Section 936(j)(3) is amended to read as
follows:

[[Page 982]]

``(3) Additional restricted reduced credit.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of an existing credit
claimant to which paragraph (2)(B) applies, the credit
determined under subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be allowed for
any taxable year beginning after December 31, 1998, and
before January 1, 2006, except that the aggregate amount of
taxable income taken into account under subsection (a)(1)(A)
for such taxable year shall not exceed the adjusted base
period income of such claimant.
``(B) Coordination with subsection (a)(4)(B).--The amount
of income described in subsection (a)(1)(A) which is taken
into account in applying subsection (a)(4)(B) shall be such
income as reduced under this paragraph.''
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 936(j)(2)(A), as amended by subsection (a), is
amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2006''.
(B) Section 30A(e)(1), as amended by section 2(c)(2), is
amended by striking ``subsection (j)(3)(A)(ii)'' and
inserting ``the exception under subsection (j)(3)(A)''.
(d) Application of Credit.--
(1) In general.--Section 936(j)(2)(A), as amended by this
section, is amended by striking ``January 1, 2006'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2009''.
(2) Special rules for applicable possessions.--Section
936(j)(8)(A) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--In the case of an applicable
possession--
``(i) this section (other than the preceding paragraphs of
this subsection) shall not apply for taxable years beginning
after December 31, 1995, and before January 1, 2006, with
respect to any substantial line of business actively
conducted in such possession by a domestic corporation which
is an existing credit claimant with respect to such line of
business, and
``(ii) this section (including this subsection) shall
apply--

``(I) with respect to any substantial line of business not
described in clause (i) for taxable years beginning after
December 31, 1998, and before January 1, 2009, and
``(II) with respect to any substantial line of business
described in clause (i) for taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2006, and before January 1, 2009.''

(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.
(2) New lines of business.--The amendment made by
subsection (b)(2) shall apply to taxable years beginning
after December 31, 1995.
____

S. 213

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LIMITATION OF COVER OVER OF TAX ON
DISTILLED SPIRITS.

(a) In General.--Section 7652 (relating to limitation on
cover over of tax on distilled spirits) is amended by
striking subsection (f) and by redesignating subsection (g)
as subsection (f).
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 7652(f) of such Code
(as so redesignated) is amended by striking ``subsection (f)
of this section'' in paragraph (1)(B) and inserting ``section
5001(a)(1)''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to articles containing distilled spirits that are tax-
determined after September 30, 1999.
(2) Special rule.--
(A) In general.--For the 5-year period beginning after
September 30, 1999, the treasury of Puerto Rico shall make a
Conservation Trust Fund transfer within 30 days from the date
of each cover over payment made during such period to such
treasury under section 7652(e) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986.
(B) Conservation trust fund transfer.--
(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term
``Conservation Trust Fund transfer'' means a transfer to the
Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund of an amount equal to 50
cents per proof gallon of the taxes imposed under section
5001 or section 7652 of such Code on distilled spirits that
are covered over to the treasury of Puerto Rico under section
7652(e) of such Code.
(ii) Treatment of transfer.--Each Conservation Trust Fund
transfer shall be treated as principal for an endowment, the
income from which to be available for use by the Puerto Rico
Conservation Trust Fund for the purposes for which the Trust
Fund was established.
(ii) Result of nontransfer.--

(I) In general.--Upon notification by the Secretary of the
Interior that a Conservation Trust Fund transfer has not been
made by the treasury of Puerto Rico during the period
described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall, except as provided in subclause (II), deduct and
withhold from the next cover over payment to be made to the
treasury of Puerto Rico under section 7652(e) of such Code an
amount equal to the appropriate Conservation Trust Fund
transfer and interest thereon at the underpayment rate
established under section 6621 of such Code as of the due
date of such transfer. The Secretary of the Treasury shall
transfer such amount deducted and withheld, and the interest
thereon, directly to the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund.
(II) Good cause exception.--If the Secretary of the
Interior finds, after consultation with the Governor of
Puerto Rico, that the failure by the treasury of Puerto Rico
to make a required transfer was for good cause, and notifies
the Secretary of the Treasury of the finding of such good
cause before the due date of the next cover over payment
following the notification of nontransfer, then the Secretary
of the Treasury shall not deduct the amount of such
nontransfer from any cover over payment.

(C) Puerto rico conservation trust fund.--For purposes of
this paragraph, the term ``Puerto Rico Conservation Trust
Fund'' means the fund established pursuant to a Memorandum of
Understanding between the United States Department of the
Interior and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, dated December
24, 1968.
____

S. 214

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CREDIT TO RESEARCH IN PUERTO
RICO AND THE POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.

(a) In General.--Section 41(d)(4)(F) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to foreign research) is
amended by inserting ``, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or
any possession of the United States'' after ``United
States''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1998.
____

S. 215

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

SECTION 1. INCREASED ALLOTMENTS FOR TERRITORIES UNDER THE
STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM.

Section 2104(c)(4)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397dd(c)(4)(B)), as added by the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law
105-277), is amended by inserting ``, $34,200,000 for each of
fiscal years 2000 and 2001, $25,200,000 for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2004, $32,400,000 for each of fiscal years
2005 and 2006, and $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2007'' before
the period.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 216. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal
the limitation on the use of foreign tax credits under the alternative
minimum tax; to the Committee on Finance.

legislation to repeal the limitation on foreign tax credits under the
corporate alternative minimum tax

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on
behalf of myself and my Finance Committee colleague, Senator Jeffords,
to repeal a limitation in the Tax Code that results in the double
taxation of certain foreign source income. The issue involves the
effect of the corporate alternative minimum tax on income earned abroad
by United States companies. Correction of this policy flaw is of
significant importance to the affected companies, their current and
future employees, and their shareholders.
The U.S. taxes the worldwide income of its corporations, citizens and
residents. Under the U.S. Tax Code, U.S. bilateral treaties, and
international norms, it is generally accepted that income with a nexus
to two countries should not be taxed by both jurisdictions, and that
the jurisdiction in which active business income is earned typically
should have the primary right to tax that income. To effectuate these
principles and to avoid double taxation, the U.S. tax laws--since the
Revenue Act of 1918--allow U.S. taxpayers to claim a foreign tax credit
with respect to foreign income taxes paid on foreign source income, and
thereby reduce U.S. income taxes on such income.
It should be emphasized that the foreign tax credit is not a tax
``loophole'' or ``preference.'' Rather, as noted by the U.S. Supreme
Court in the 1932 case of Burnet versus Chicago, ``the primary design''
of the foreign tax credit system is to ``mitigate the evil of double
taxation.''
However, in enacting the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Congress concluded
that this salutary purpose was outweighed by another. At that time,
Congress was concerned with a serious problem: repeated instances of
large corporations

[[Page 983]]

with substantial economic profits (reported to shareholders in their
annual reports) paying little or no Federal income taxes. In response,
Congress rewrote the corporate alternative minimum tax.
Congress had specific purposes in mind in rewriting the minimum tax.
First, as noted by the Joint Tax Committee in its General Explanation
of the Tax Reform Act of 1986:

. . . Congress decided that it was inherently unfair for
high-income taxpayers to pay little or no tax due to their
ability to utilize tax preferences.

An obvious and incontrovertible sentiment. Yet, as noted above,
foreign tax credits are not tax preferences or loopholes.
Congress was also concerned with appearances. The Joint Tax Committee
Explanation continued:

. . . Congress concluded that there must be a reasonable
certainty that, whenever a company publicly reports
significant earnings, that company will pay some tax for the
year.

No argument here. And Congress ensured that companies reporting
profits would in fact pay tax by, among other changes, requiring
corporations to increase their ``alternative minimum taxable income''
by a percentage of the income reported on financial statements, and
requiring the use of a slower depreciation schedule rather than
accelerated depreciation for purposes of cost recovery.
But what about foreign tax credits? The Joint Tax Committee
Explanation stated:

. . . While Congress viewed allowance of the foreign tax
credit . . . as generally appropriate for minimum tax
purposes, it was considered fair to mandate at least a
nominal tax contribution from all U.S. taxpayers with
substantial economic income.

To state it less elegantly, Congress believed that limited double
taxation of a corporation's foreign source income was a lesser evil
than allowing a corporation to fully use its foreign tax credits. The
1986 tax act provided that foreign tax credits could be used to offset
up to 90 percent of a corporation's minimum tax liability. Thus,
affected taxpayers pay at least 10 percent of their alternative minimum
tax, no matter that the tax relates to foreign source income earned in
a high-tax foreign jurisdiction and that the taxpayer has paid tax on
that income.
Although Congress believed the 90 percent restriction to have been
fair policy in 1986, the restriction can no longer be justified.
First, we now have a decade of experience over which to judge the
effect of the restriction. I am aware of at least one key employer in
New York that alone has paid significant amounts of minimum tax due to
this provision, some of which was incurred in years during which the
company reported losses on a worldwide basis.
Second, since the 1986 Act, there have been a number of significant
modifications to the minimum tax. For example, the Taxpayer Relief Act
of 1997 allows large corporate taxpayers to use accelerated
depreciation under the minimum tax, and it repealed the minimum tax in
its entirety for corporations with gross receipts of $5 million or
less. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 allowed taxpayers to
claim tax benefits under the minimum tax relating to oil & gas
intangible drilling costs. Considering the post-1986 relaxations of the
minimum tax, little purpose remains in the 90 percent limitation.
Finally, since 1986, many of our largest businesses have seen
tremendous expansion in their exports and foreign sales, thus
substantially increasing the amount of foreign source income. At the
same time, these companies must compete with foreign companies that do
not have to bear double taxation. As my friend Senator Alfonse D'Amato
noted when introducing similar legislation last year:

The result is double (and even triple) taxation of income
that is used to support U.S. jobs, R&D and other activities.

The restriction can no longer be justified.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
included in the Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 216

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON FOREIGN TAX CREDIT UNDER
ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.

(a) In General.--Section 59(a) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to alternative minimum tax foreign tax
credit) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and by
redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (2) and
(3), respectively.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 53(d)(1)(B)(i)(II) of
such Code is amended by striking ``and if section 59(a)(2)
did not apply''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1998.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am joining with my colleague
from New York, Senator Moynihan, to introduce a bill that will
eliminate an aspect of our internal revenue laws that is fundamentally
unfair to taxpayers with income from foreign sources.
Under our system of taxation, U.S. citizens and domestic corporations
earning income from sources outside the United States are subject to
U.S. tax on that foreign-source income. In all likelihood, that income
will also be subject to tax by the country where it was earned. Thus,
the same income could be taxed twice, by two different countries. To
guard against the double taxation of this income, the tax code allows
taxpayers to offset their U.S. tax on foreign-source income with the
foreign taxes paid on that income. This is accomplished by means of a
foreign tax credit; that is, the foreign tax paid on foreign source
income is credited against the U.S. tax that would otherwise be payable
on that income. The details of the foreign tax credit rules are
extraordinarily complex. (Indeed, virtually all of the Internal Revenue
Code's provisions governing international taxation are complex.) The
basic principle underlying the foreign tax credit rules, however, is
simple: to provide relief from multiple taxation of the same income.
Many U.S. taxpayers have to perform two tax computations. First, they
compute their ``regular tax.'' Then, they compute their ``alternative
minimum tax'' (AMT). As a rule, taxpayers pay the larger of these two
computations, the ``regular tax'' or the AMT. The AMT was enacted to
ensure that taxpayers qualifying for various tax ``preferences''
allowed by the Internal Revenue Code must pay a minimum amount of tax.
While foreign tax credits guard against double taxation in the
``regular tax'' computation, the principle of providing relief from
double taxation falls by the wayside in the AMT computation. Under AMT
rules, the allowable foreign tax credit is unlimited to 90 percent of a
taxpayer's alternative minimum tax liability. Because of this
limitation, income subject to foreign tax is also subject to U.S. tax.
This rule operates to ensure double taxation, and the result is double
(and even triple) taxation of income.
There is no sound policy reason for denying relief from double
taxation to taxpayers subject to the AMT. The foreign tax credit is not
a ``preference'' that serves as an incentive for a particular activity
or behavior, rather, it simply reflects the fundamental principle that
income should not be subject to multiple taxation. The 90 percent
limitation was enacted as part of the 1986 tax bill solely as a method
of raising revenue. The bill that Senator Moynihan and I are
introducing today will eliminate the AMT's 90 percent limitation on
foreign tax credits. Eliminating this limitation will mean that
taxpayers subject to the AMT will get the same relief from double
taxation allowed to taxpayers subject to the regular tax.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 217. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for the treatment of charitable transfers of collections of personal
papers with a separate right to control access; to the Committee on
Finance.

[[Page 984]]

legislation to encourage donations of personal papers to historical and
educational organizations

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on
behalf of myself and Senators Inouye and Wellstone to correct a little-
known estate and gift tax provision that may inadvertently penalize
persons who donate their personal papers and related items to a
charitable organization for the historical record.
The issue arises in connection with the donation of personal papers
and related items to a university, library, historical society, or
other charitable organizations. In general, such a transfer has no
estate or gift tax consequences. While the value of any such transfer
may be subject to taxation as a theoretical matter, as a practical
matter the gift will not be taxed because a corresponding charitable
deduction would be available. This is as it should be: the donor
receives neither a tax benefit nor a tax burden, and the tax law is not
a factor in the decision to make such a donation.
Recently, however, estate planning lawyers have become concerned
about situations in which such a gift might give rise to adverse tax
consequences. The situation occurs where the donor retains (or
transfers to his or her surviving spouse or children) various rights in
the papers donated, such as a right to limit or control access. The
restrictions might be in place for many understandable reasons, such as
to protect the privacy of colleagues, correspondents, staffs, family
and friends. Depending on how the retained rights are described in a
deed of gift or will, and how such rights are treated under state law,
the retention of various rights may cause the gift to fail to qualify
for a charitable deduction under the estate and gift tax.
The problem arises under a series of rules enacted in the Tax Reform
Act of 1969 that were designed to prevent abuses in the transfer tax
system. These rules were written, in part, to address situations
involving taxpayers who claimed a charitable contribution deduction
significantly in excess of the value of property that the charity was
expected to receive. This result was accomplished by making a
charitable gift in the form of an income or remainder interest in a
trust, claiming an inflated charitable deduction through favorable
valuation methods, and adopting an investment policy for the trust that
significantly favored the noncharitable interest to the detriment of
the charitable interest. In response, Congress established certain
requirements to ensure that the charity would actually receive the
portion of the property for which a deduction was allowed, and to deny
a charitable deduction in cases where a ``split-interest'' gift was
made that did not meet the specified requirements.
These rules were not intended to apply to the donation of
historically important papers. Unlike the abusive situations of the
past where charities were unlikely to receive the benefit of the
purported gifts, in this situation the charity takes physical
possession of the collection of papers. This is not a tax scheme
designed to exploit weak rules.
I stated that there ``may'' be a problem with the estate and gift tax
law because it is not clear whether the split-interest rule would
disallow a charitable deduction in situations where donors have
retained various rights to control and limit access to their papers.
When do such limited rights reach the point of being recognized as a
type of ownership interest under state law? I suspect that many
prominent people have donated their papers in the past thirty years
with similar restrictions, in reliance on documents prepared by
knowledgeable legal advisors and curators, and never imagined that
there could be adverse tax consequences.
One way to get around this problem would be to avoid restrictions on
the use of the papers. But that may not be practical, advisable, or
desirable.
We can look to those who served across the street, in the Supreme
Court of the United States, for examples of the types of restrictions
that have been imposed on donations of important papers of public
figures. Chief Justice Earl Warren, who donated his papers to the
Library of Congress, restricted access to those papers for 10 years
after his death. Justice Hugo Black, who also donated his papers to the
Library of Congress, restricted access during the lifetime of his
heirs, and required that permission be obtained from the executors of
his estate to use the collection, to publish any writings in the
collection, or to publish any writings about them. Justice Potter
Stewart donated his papers to the Library of Congress with the
restriction that all Court materials be closed pending retirement of
all justices who served on the Supreme Court with him.
In contrast, Justice Thurgood Marshall donated his papers to ``be
made available to the public at the discretion of the library,'' with
the only restriction being that the use of the donated materials ``be
limited to private study on the premises of the library by researchers
or scholars engaged in serious research.'' This was interpreted to
allow journalists to access the papers. The publication of certain
information contained in the materials shortly after Justice Marshall's
death was criticized. Indeed, Chief Justice William Rehnquist warned
that Supreme Court Justices might no longer donate their papers to the
Library of Congress.
Certainly, retained rights can have value, and could be subjected to
commercial exploitation. One can imagine a publishing house would want
access to the papers of prominent Members, Congressmen, or others, for
use in biographies or on books related to the events that they helped
shape.
However, any opportunity to retain and bequeath commercially
exploitable rights in historical papers free of estate taxes is of
little importance relative to the need to preserve the documents for
scholarly research. Consider decision memoranda from key aides,
correspondence, notes of strategy sessions, recordings of telephone
conversations such as those made by President Lyndon Johnson and only
now being aired--will these documents be destroyed if the choice were
to open the items upon death or to pay an estate tax on them? Consider
Chief Justice Rehnquist's chilling warning.
Yet, in most if not all cases, any retained rights can be expected to
have little realizable value, and opportunities for commercial
exploitation would appear to be quite limited in scope.
To this Senator, the right thing to do is clear. I am introducing
legislation to clarify the tax law. In brief, this legislation provides
that a person may retain and bequeath limited qualified rights to a
collection of papers and related items. I.e., a collection
substantially all the items of which are in the form of letters,
memoranda, notes, and similar materials. Qualified rights would include
the right of access to the materials, and the right to designate,
limit, and control access to the materials, for a period of time not to
exceed 25 years after the death of the person who created (or
collected) the materials.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
included in the Record, along with a letter from our Senate Legal
Counsel.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 217

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

SECTION 1. TAX TREATMENT OF CHARITABLE TRANSFERS OF
COLLECTIONS OF PERSONAL PAPERS WITH SEPARATE
RIGHT TO CONTROL ACCESS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 14 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 2705. TREATMENT OF CHARITABLE TRANSFERS OF COLLECTIONS
OF PERSONAL PAPERS WITH SEPARATE RIGHT TO
CONTROL ACCESS.

``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of this subtitle, if--
``(1) an individual transfers an interest in qualified
property to a person, or for a use described in section
2055(a) or section 2522 (a) or (b), and
``(2) the individual retains or transfers to another person
the right to control access to such property for a period not
to exceed 25 years after the death of the individual,

sections 2036, 2038, 2055(e)(2), and 2522(c)(2) shall not
apply solely by reason of the individual retaining or
transferring such right.
``(b) Special Rules Relating To Transfer of Right To
Control Access.--If any individual transfers the right to
control access

[[Page 985]]

described in subsection (a) to another person for less than
an adequate and full consideration in money or money's
worth--
``(1) no tax shall be imposed under this subtitle by reason
of the transfer, and
``(2) if the transfer involves the right being acquired, or
passed, from a decedent, section 1014 shall not apply and the
basis of the right in the hands of the transferee shall be
determined under rules similar to the rules under section
1015.
``(c) Qualified Property.--For purposes of this section,
the term `qualified property' means a collection
substantially all of the items of which are in the form of
letters, memoranda, or similar property described in section
1221(3).''
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The heading for chapter 14 of such Code is amended to
read as follows:

``CHAPTER 14--SPECIAL VALUATION RULES; RULES AFFECTING SUBTITLE''.

(2) The item relating to chapter 14 in the table of
chapters of subtitle B of such Code is amended by striking
``rules.'' and inserting ``rules; rules affecting subtitle.''
(3) The table of sections of chapter 14 of such Code is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 2705. Treatment of charitable transfers of collections of
personal papers with separate right to control access.''
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to any transfer made before, on, or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
____

U.S. Senate,

Office of Senate Legal Counsel,

Washington, DC, June 25, 1997.
Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Moynihan:
I am writing to bring to your attention a recent
interpretation of federal gift and estate tax law that
threatens to interrupt the flow of historically significant
papers of our Nation's academic and historical research
institutions from public officials and public figures,
including Members of Congress. Over the past decades, public
officials have regularly donated their personal papers to
educational institutions or historical societies, often upon
their retirement, or bequeathed the papers at time of death.
Senators and other public officials typically restrict access
to portions of their papers for a period of years after
donation or bequest, in order to protect the privacy
interests of their correspondents, constituents, staffs, and
others. These donations provide the donors with no income tax
benefit, as government papers do not generate a personal
income tax deduction under the Internal Revenue Code.
The shared understanding up until now has been that such
donations also have no gift or estate tax consequence to the
donor, as long as the donation is made to a recognized
charitable organization. However, under a recent
interpretation of provisions of the gift and estate tax law
that render gifts of partial property interests ineligible
for the charitable deduction, the retained right to control
access to papers after they are donated or bequeathed could
disqualify these charitable gifts from the charitable gift
and estate tax deductions. This interpretation would render
charitable gifts of personal papers with a retained right to
control access subject to substantial and undeserved gift and
estate taxation.
The possibility that these gift and estate tax provisions
could be interpreted to apply to gifts and bequests of
historical papers where rights of public access remain
discretionary for a period of time has deterred a number of
Senators in recent months from completing their plans to
donate their Senate papers to charitable institutions. Our
office has been in contact with a number of Senators whose
plans to donate their Senate papers have been interrupted by
this problem. It is unlikely that public officials will be
willing to make charitable donations of their papers until
this issue can be resolved so as to accommodate the important
interests in both scholarly preservation and privacy.
Consideration of a legislative amendment to the charitable
gift and estate tax deduction provisions to clarify that
charitable gifts and bequests of public figures' papers are
intended to be free from taxation would serve the public
interest in ensuring that the personal records of Senators
and other officials and public figures are preserved in the
public domain so that they may one day become available to
scholars and researchers who document our Nation's history.
Sincerely,
Morgan J. Frankel.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 218. A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States to provide for equitable duty treatment for certain wool used in
making suits; to the Committee on Finance.

temporarily reducing the tariffs on certain wool fabric

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
correct an anomaly in our tariff schedule that harms American companies
like Hickey-Freeman and other producers of fine wool suits. I refer of
course to the tariff on fine wool fabric. Hickey-Freeman has produced
fine tailored suits in Rochester, New York since 1899. However, the
U.S. tariff schedule currently makes it difficult for Hickey-Freeman to
continue producing such suits in the United States.
Companies like Hickey-Freeman that must import the very high quality
wool fabric used to make men's and boys' suits pay a tariff of 30.6
percent. They compete with companies that import finished wool suits
from a number of countries. If these imported suits are from Canada or
Mexico, the importers pay no tariff whatever. From other countries, the
importers pay a compound duty of 19.2 percent plus 26.4 cents per
kilogram, or about 19.8 percent ad valorem. Clearly, domestic
manufacturers of wool suits are placed at a significant price
disadvantage. Indeed, the tariff structure provides an incentive to
import finished suits from abroad, rather than manufacture them in the
United States.
The bill Senators Schumer, Durbin and I are introducing today would
correct this problem, at least temporarily. It suspends through
December 31, 2004 the duty on the finest wool fabrics (known in the
trade as Super 90s or higher grade)--fabrics that are produced in only
very limited quantities in the United States. And it would reduce the
duty for slightly lower grade but still very fine wool fabric (known as
Super 70s and Super 80s) to 19.8 percent--equivalent to the duty that
applies to most finished wool suits. The bill also provides that, in
the event the President proclaims a duty reduction on wool suits,
corresponding changes would be made to the tariffs applicable to
``Super 70s'' and ``Super 80s'' grade wool fabric.
I introduced a similar measure last year. I do so again because of
the obvious inequity of this tariff inversion, which so clearly puts
U.S. producers and workers at a competitive disadvantage. This bill
represents a small step toward modifying a tariff schedule that favors
foreign producers of wools suits at the expense of U.S. suit makers. We
should do so permanently, and perhaps, in time, will do so. In the
meantime, we ought to make this modest start.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 218

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

SECTION 1. DUTY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN FABRICS.

(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of the U.S. notes the following
new note:
``13. For purposes of headings 9902.51.11 and 9902.51.12,
the term `suit' has the same meaning such term has for
purposes of headings 6203 and 6204.''; and
(2) by inserting in numerical sequence the following new
headings:

`` 9902.51.11 Fabrics, of carded 19.8% No change No change On or before 12/
or combed wool, 31/2004
all the foregoing
certified by the
importer as
`Super 70's' or
`Super 80's'
intended for use
in making suits,
suit-type jackets
or trousers
(provided for in
subheadings
5111.11.70,
5111.19.60,
5112.11.20, or
5112.19.90).

[[Page 986]]

9902.51.12 Fabrics, of carded Free Free (CA, IL, No change On or before 12/ ''
or combed wool, MX) 31/2004 .
all the foregoing
certified by the
importer as
`Super 90's' or
higher grade
intended for use
in making suits,
suit-type jackets
or trousers
(provided for in
subheadings
5111.11.70,
5111.19.60,
5112.11.20, or
5112.19.90).

(b) Staged Rate Reduction.--Any staged reduction of a rate
of duty set forth in heading 6203.31.00 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States that is proclaimed by
the President on or after the date of enactment of this Act
shall also apply to the corresponding rate of duty set forth
in heading 9902.51.11 of such Schedule (as added by
subsection (a)).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
apply with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the
date of enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 219. A bill to authorize appropriations for the United States
Customs Service; to the Committee on Finance.

the northern border trade facilitation act

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Northern
Border Trade Facilitation Act, a bill that addresses the urgent need
for increased Customs inspectors and technology along the U.S.-Canadian
border.
The U.S.-Canadian border is the longest undefended border in the
world. Canada is also our largest trading partner, with two-way trade
surpassing $1 billion a day. Yet, the resources that we have provided
to the Customs Service to process traffic and trade across this border
are woefully deficient. In a hearing before the Senate Finance
Committee in September 1998, we learned that the current number of
authorized Customs inspectors working on the northern border remains
essentially the same as it was in 1980, despite the fact that the
number of commercial entries they must process has increased sixfold
since then, from 1 million to 6 million per year. The increased
workload reflects of course the tremendous growth in U.S.-Canada trade:
two-way trade in 1988, the year before the U.S.-Canada Free Trade
Agreement entered into force, was $194 billion. By 1997, the volume had
doubled--to $387 billion. There has also been an enormous expansion in
both commercial and passenger traffic across this border.
The resources available to the Customs Service over the last decade
have not kept pace with this enormous growth in workload. As a result,
increased congestion and delays are evident at crossings all along the
U.S.-Canadian border.
This bill aims to correct these problems by authorizing the
additional manpower and technology necessary to handle the increase in
trade and traffic between the United States and Canada. In particular,
this bill authorizes 375 additional ``primary lane'' inspectors and 125
new cargo inspectors for the northern border, as well as 40 special
agents and 10 intelligence agents. The bill also authorizes $29.240
million for equipment and technology for the northern border.
The bill will also accord Customs the statutory authorization to
continue providing so-called ``preclearance services,'' whereby Customs
inspects passengers and baggage prior to their departure from a foreign
country rather than upon arrival in the United States. This program
began in 1952 and has helped facilitate travel and decrease congestion
at JFK international Airport and other ports of entry. Customs has
indicated that without this new statutory authority, it will be unable
to continue providing these services.
Finally, this legislation gives Customs the authority to use $50
million of the total amounts collected from the merchandise processing
fee to modernize its automated commercial systems used to track and
process imports and exports. Customs' efforts to modernize these
systems are several years behind schedule and underfunded. The funds
authorized by this bill constitute an essential step in providing
Customs with the necessary resources to continue its modernization
efforts.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 219

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 ``Northern Border Trade
Facilitation Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States and Canada share the longest
undefended border in the world.
(2) The United States and Canada enjoy the world's largest
bilateral trading relationship, and that relationship is
continuing to expand. Two-way trade between the United States
and Canada has more than doubled since the United States-
Canada Free Trade Agreement was implemented, increasing from
$153,000,000,000 in 1988 to $320,000,000,000 in 1997.
(3) On February 24, 1995, the United States and Canada
agreed to the Canada/United States of America Accord on Our
Shared Border (in this Act referred to as the ``Shared Border
Accord'') to promote common objectives along the border,
including--
(A) facilitating the movement of commercial goods and
people between both countries;
(B) reducing the costs of border management; and
(C) enhancing protections against drugs, smuggling, and the
illegal and irregular movement of people.
(4) The Shared Border Accord has already resulted in
increased harmonization, shared training, and joint
facilities between United States and Canadian customs
agencies.
(5) Increased trade has resulted in a significant increase
in merchandise entries and cross-border traffic between the
United States and Canada. For example--
(A) formal entries of merchandise on the Northern border
have increased sixfold from 1,000,000 in 1980 to 6,000,000 in
1997;
(B) the number of individuals crossing the Northern border
has more than doubled from 54,000,000 in 1989 to 112,000,000
in 1997; and
(C) approximately 40,000,000 privately-owned vehicles cross
the Northern land border annually.
(6) The staffing and technology acquisitions of the Customs
Service have not kept pace with the increased trade and
traffic along the Northern border. For example--
(A) the current number of authorized United States Customs
inspectors along the United States-Canadian border is
essentially the same as the number employed in 1980;
(B) United States Customs understaffing is the primary
cause of congestion at border crossings;
(C) Customs Service acquisitions of new technology for
border management have been principally deployed on the
Southern border despite the enormous growth in trade and
traffic across the United States-Canadian border; and
(D) outmoded technologies and inadequate equipment have
increased congestion along the Northern border.
(7) Since 1952, the Customs Service has performed
preclearance activities in Canada, inspecting passengers and
baggage prior to their departure from Canada rather than upon
arrival in the United States. Such preclearance activities
have facilitated the movement of people and merchandise
across the United States-Canadian border.
(8) The Customs Service has stated that it is eliminating
the preclearance positions because it believes that it no
longer has the statutory authority to fund the positions.
(9) Loss of these positions would increase congestion and
delays at United States ports as the Customs Service would
require inspections to be performed in the United States,
rather than abroad.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to facilitate
commerce and the movement of people and traffic across the
United States-Canadian border, while maintaining enforcement,
by--
(1) authorizing the funds necessary to open all of the
Customs Service's primary inspection lanes along the United
States-Canadian border during peak hours;
(2) authorizing the funds necessary to supply the Customs
Service with the appropriate advanced technology to conduct
inspections along the United States-Canadian border and to
participate fully in the Shared Border Accord;
(3) authorizing the Customs Service to pay for preclearance
positions in Canada out of the funds already being collected
from passenger processing fees; and

[[Page 987]]

(4) authorizing the Customs Service to use a portion of the
funds collected from the merchandise processing fee to
develop automated commercial systems to facilitate the
processing of merchandise.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS
SERVICE FOR ENHANCED INSPECTION AND TRADE FACILITATION ALONG THE UNITED
STATES-CANADIAN BORDER

SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS.

In order to reduce commercial delays and congestion, open
all primary lanes during peak hours at ports on the northern
border, and enhance the investigative resources of the
Customs Service, there are authorized to be appropriated for
salaries, expenses, and equipment for the United States
Customs Service for purposes of carrying out this title--
(1) $75,896,800 for fiscal year 2000; and
(2) $43,931,790 for fiscal year 2001.

SEC. 102. PEAK HOURS AND INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT
FOR THE UNITED STATES-CANADA BORDER.

Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under section
101, $49,314,800 in fiscal year 2000 and $41,273,590 in
fiscal year 2001 shall be for--
(1) a net increase of 375 inspectors for the United States-
Canadian border, in order to open all primary lanes during
peak hours and enhance investigative resources;
(2) a net increase of 125 inspectors to be distributed at
large cargo facilities on the United States-Canadian border
as needed to process and screen cargo (including rail cargo)
and reduce commercial waiting times; and
(3) a net increase of 40 special agents, and 10
intelligence analysts to facilitate the activities of the
additional inspectors authorized by paragraphs (1) and (2).

SEC. 103. CARGO INSPECTION EQUIPMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES-
CANADA BORDER.

(a) Fiscal Year 2000.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated in fiscal year 2000 under section 101,
$26,582,000 shall be available until expended for acquisition
and other expenses associated with implementation and
deployment of cargo inspection equipment along the United
States-Canadian border as follows:
(1) $3,000,000 for 4 Vehicle and Container Inspection
Systems (VACIS).
(2) $8,800,000 for 4 mobile truck x-rays with transmission
and backscatter imaging.
(3) $3,600,000 for 4 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
(4) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters)
to be distributed among ports where the current allocations
are inadequate.
(5) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be
distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
(6) $240,000 for 10 portable Treasury Enforcement
Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved among
ports as needed.
(7) $400,000 for 10 narcotics vapor and particle detectors
to be distributed to each border crossing based on traffic
volume.
(8) $600,000 for 30 fiber optic scopes.
(9) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters)
to be distributed among ports where the current allocations
are inadequate;
(10) $3,000,000 for 10 x-ray vans with particle detectors.
(11) $40,000 for 8 AM loop radio systems.
(12) $400,000 for 100 vehicle counters.
(13) $1,200,000 for 12 examination tool trucks.
(14) $2,400,000 for 3 dedicated commuter lanes.
(15) $1,050,000 for 3 automated targeting systems.
(16) $572,000 for 26 weigh-in-motion sensors.
(17) $480,000 for 20 portable Treasury Enforcement
Communication Systems (TECS).
(b) Fiscal Year 2001.--Of the amounts made available for
fiscal year 2001 under section 101, $2,658,200 shall be for
the maintenance and support of the equipment and training of
personnel to maintain and support the equipment described in
subsection (a).
(c) Acquisition of Technologically Superior Equipment;
Transfer of Funds.--
(1) In general.--The Commissioner of Customs may use
amounts made available for fiscal year 2000 under section 101
for the acquisition of equipment other than the equipment
described in subsection (a) if such other equipment--
(A)(i) is technologically superior to the equipment
described in subsection (a); and
(ii) will achieve at least the same results at a cost that
is the same or less than the equipment described in
subsection (a); or
(B) can be obtained at a lower cost than the equipment
described in subsection (a).
(2) Transfer of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this section, the Commissioner of Customs may reallocate
an amount not to exceed 10 percent of the amount specified in
any of paragraphs (1) through (17) of subsection (a) for
equipment specified in any other of such paragraphs (1)
through (17).
TITLE II--ADDITIONAL PRECLEARANCE ACTIVITIES

SEC. 201. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

(a) Additional Preclearance Activities.--Section
13031(f)(3)(A)(iii) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)(A)(iii)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(iii) to the extent funds remain available after making
reimbursements under clause (ii), in providing salaries for
up to 50 full-time equivalent inspectional positions to
provide preclearance services.''.
(b) Collection of Fees for Passengers Aboard Commercial
Vessels.--Section 13031 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by amending paragraph (5) to read as
follows:
``(5)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), for the arrival of
each passenger aboard a commercial vessel or commercial
aircraft from a place outside the United States (other than a
place referred to in subsection (b)(1)(A)(i)), $5.
``(B) For the arrival of each passenger aboard a commercial
vessel from a place referred to in subsection (b)(1)(A)(i),
$1.75''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by striking ``(A) No fee'' and
inserting ``(A) Except as provided in subsection (a)(5)(B),
no fee''.
(c) Use of Merchandise Processing Fees for Automated
Commercial Systems.--Section 13031(f) of the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Of the amounts collected under paragraphs (9) and
(10) of subsection (a), $50,000,000 shall be available to the
Customs Service, subject to appropriations Acts, for
automated commercial systems. Amounts made available under
this paragraph shall remain available until expended.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 220. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to consolidate and
improve the trade adjustment assistance and NAFTA transitional
adjustment assistance programs under that Act, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.

trade adjustment assistance improvements act of 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am introducing today legislation that
will preserve a decades-old commitment by the United States Government
to the American worker. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Improvements
Act of 1999 will ensure that the trade adjustment assistance programs
for workers and for firms, first established in 1962 and now set to
expire on June 30, 1999, will continue uninterrupted through September
30, 2001. The legislation also proposes a number of reforms to these
programs to help make them into more effective tools for assisting
workers who lose their jobs as a result of competition from imports or
shifts in production to overseas sites.
By way of background, the Trade Adjustment Assistance program
provides eligible workers with income support, training and other forms
of assistance. It also grants technical help to eligible companies to
improve their manufacturing, marketing and other capabilities in the
face of import competition.
First outlined in 1954 by United Steel Workers President David
MacDonald, the basic Trade Adjustment Assistance program was enacted in
the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 as part of President Kennedy's vision
of American trade policy. It was based on a modest and fair request
from American labor: if some workers are to lose their jobs as a result
of freer trade that benefits the country as a whole, a program should
be established to help those workers find new employment. The Trade
Adjustment Assistance program was the response. As Luther Hodges,
President Kennedy's Secretary of Commerce, told the Finance Committee
during consideration of the Trade Expansion Act:

Both workers and firms may encounter special difficulties
when they feel the adverse effects of import competition.
This is import competition caused directly by the Federal
Government when it lowers tariffs as part of a trade
agreement undertaken for the long-term economic good of the
country as a whole.
The Federal Government has a special responsibility in this
case. When the Government has contributed to economic
injuries, it should also contribute to the economic
adjustments required to repair them.

The 1962 Act established the basic TAA programs for workers and for
firms. Then in 1993, Congress included in the implementing legislation
for the North American Free Trade Agreement a new adjustment assistance
program

[[Page 988]]

for workers--the NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance program.
Unlike the basic TAA program for workers, which provides training and
income support only for workers who lose their jobs as a result of
competition from imports, the NAFTA-TAA program also provides
assistance when workers lose their jobs because their factories have
shifted production to Mexico or Canada. Moreover, the training
requirements under the two programs differ somewhat. The bill I am
introducing today incorporates a number of modifications to the worker
TAA programs that the Administration, in consultation with concerned
worker groups, has proposed. And I must also acknowledge the
considerable efforts of Congressmen Matsui and Bonior on this matter
during the last Congress, which yielded a reform bill similar to the
one I am introducing today.
The most significant of the reforms would merge the two separate
programs for workers, in an effort to make the program more effective
and responsible to workers, while at the same time reducing
administrative costs. Key features of the merged programs include the
following:
(1) Eligible workers may receive benefits because production has
shifted to any country, and not just to either Mexico or Canada as the
law currently provides;
(2) The Secretary of Labor will expedite her consideration of
petitions for assistance. Instead of the current 60-day review of TAA
cases, this bill would require that determinations be made within 40
days;
(3) Certified workers will be required to enroll in training within
16 weeks of layoff or eight weeks after being certified as eligible for
TAA benefits, whichever is later, in order to qualify for extended
income support while in training. This provision is intended to promote
the earliest possible adjustment; and
(4) The bill provides for a net increase of $40 million in training
funds to ensure that adequate resources will be available to provide
workers with the training they need to make the transition to a new
job.
Mr. President, it is essential that the United States Congress live
up to its longstanding commitment to the American worker. The Trade
Adjustment Assistance programs must not be allowed to lapse. We have an
obligation, as well, to ensure that these programs operate in an
effective and efficient manner. The reforms proposed by the
Administration deserve the Senate's consideration. Time is of the
essence, however, and I urge that the Senate act promptly to
reauthorize the TAA programs.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 220

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 ``Trade Adjustment Assistance
Improvements Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF CONSOLIDATED TRADE ADJUSTMENT
ASSISTANCE.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--Section 245 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2317) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 245. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department
of Labor for each of the fiscal years 1999 through 2001 such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this
chapter.''.
(2) Temporary extension of NAFTA assistance.--Section
250(d)(2) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2331(d)(2)) is amended by
striking ``June 30, 1999, shall not exceed $15,000,000'' and
inserting ``September 30, 1999, shall not exceed
$30,000,000''.
(b) Repeal of NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance
Program.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter D of chapter 2 of title II of
such Act (19 U.S.C. 2331) is hereby repealed.
(2) Conforming amendments.--(A) Section 249A of such Act
(19 U.S.C. 2322) is hereby repealed.
(B) The table of contents of such Act is amended--
(i) by striking the item relating to section 249A; and
(ii) by striking the items relating to subchapter D of
chapter 2 of title II.
(c) Termination.--Section 285 of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2271
note) is amended--
(1) by amending subsection (c)(1) to read as follows:
``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no
assistance, vouchers, allowances, or other payments may be
provided under chapter 2, and no technical assistance may be
provided under chapter 3, after September 30, 2001.''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``June 30, 1999,''
and inserting ``September 30, 1999,''.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) Subsections (a) and (c).--The amendments made by
subsections (a) and (c) take effect on--
(A) July 1, 1999; or
(B) the date of enactment of this Act,

whichever is earlier.
(2) Subsection (b).--The amendments made by subsection (b)
take effect on--
(A) October 1, 1999; or
(B) 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act,

whichever is later.

SEC. 3. FILING OF PETITIONS AND PROVISION OF RAPID RESPONSE
ASSISTANCE; EXPEDITED REVIEW OF PETITIONS BY
SECRETARY OF LABOR.

(a) Filing of Petitions and Provision of Rapid Response
Assistance.--Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2271(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a)(1) A petition for certification of eligibility to
apply for adjustment assistance for a group of workers under
this chapter may be filed with the Governor of the State in
which such workers' firm or subdivision is located by any of
the following:
``(A) The group of workers (including workers in an
agricultural firm or subdivision of any agricultural firm).
``(B) The certified or recognized union or other duly
authorized representative of such workers.
``(C) Employers of such workers, one-stop operators or one-
stop partners (as defined in section 101 of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801)), or State employment
agencies, on behalf of such workers.
``(2) Upon receipt of a petition filed under paragraph (1),
the Governor shall--
``(A) immediately transmit the petition to the Secretary of
Labor (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the
`Secretary');
``(B) ensure that rapid response assistance and basic
readjustment services authorized under other Federal laws are
made available to the workers covered by the petition to the
extent authorized under such laws; and
``(C) assist the Secretary in the review of the petition by
verifying such information and providing such other
assistance as the Secretary may request.
``(3) Upon receipt of the petition, the Secretary shall
promptly publish notice in the Federal Register that the
Secretary has received the petition and initiated an
investigation.''.
(b) Expedited Review of Petitions by Secretary of Labor.--
Section 223(a) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2273(a)) is amended in
the first sentence by striking ``60 days'' and inserting ``40
days''.

SEC. 4. ADDITION OF SHIFT IN PRODUCTION AS BASIS FOR
ELIGIBILITY FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.

Section 222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2272(a))
is amended to read as follows:
``(a) A group of workers (including workers in any
agricultural firm or subdivision of an agricultural firm)
shall be certified by the Secretary as eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under this chapter pursuant to a
petition filed under section 221 if the Secretary determines
that--
``(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in
such workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm
have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened
to become totally or partially separated; and
``(2)(A)(i) the sales or production, or both, of such firm
or subdivision have decreased absolutely;
``(ii) imports of articles like or directly competitive
with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased; and
``(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii)
contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat
of separation and to the decline in the sales or production
of such firm or subdivision; or
``(B) there has been a shift in production by such workers'
firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or
directly competitive with articles which are produced by such
firm or subdivision.''.

SEC. 5. INFORMATION ON CERTAIN CERTIFICATIONS.

Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) is
amended by adding at the end the following subsection:
``(e) The Secretary shall collect and maintain
information--
``(1) identifying the countries to which firms have shifted
production resulting in certifications under section
222(a)(2)(B), including the number of such certifications
relating to each country; and
``(2) to the extent feasible, identifying the countries
from which imports of articles have resulted in
certifications under section

[[Page 989]]

222(a)(2)(A), including the number of such certifications
relating to each country.''.

SEC. 6. ENROLLMENT IN TRAINING REQUIREMENT.

Section 231(a)(5)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2291(a)(5)(A)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(A)'';
(2) by adding ``and'' after the comma at the end; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) the enrollment required under clause (i) occurs no
later than the latest of--
``(I) the last day of the 16th week after the worker's most
recent total separation from adversely affected employment
which meets the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2);
``(II) the last day of the 8th week after the week in which
the Secretary issues a certification covering the worker; or
``(III) 45 days after the later of the dates specified in
subclause (I) or (II), if the Secretary determines there are
extenuating circumstances that justify an extension in the
enrollment period;''.

SEC. 7. WAIVERS OF TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General.--Section 231(c) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2291(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c)(1) The Secretary may issue a written statement to a
worker waiving the enrollment in the training requirement
described in subsection (a)(5)(A) if the Secretary determines
that such training requirement is not feasible or appropriate
for the worker, as indicated by 1 or more of the following:
``(A) The worker has been notified that the worker will be
recalled by the firm from which the qualifying separation
occurred.
``(B) The worker has marketable skills as determined
pursuant to an assessment of the worker, which may include
the profiling system under section 303(j) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 503(j)), carried out in accordance
with guidelines issued by the Secretary.
``(C) The worker is within 2 years of meeting all
requirements for entitlement to old-age insurance benefits
under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et
seq.) (except for application therefor).
``(D) The worker is unable to participate in training due
to the health of the worker, except that a waiver under this
subparagraph shall not be construed to exempt a worker from
requirements relating to the availability for work, active
search for work, or refusal to accept work under Federal or
State unemployment compensation laws.
``(E) The first available enrollment date for the approved
training of the worker is within 45 days after the date of
the determination made under this paragraph, or, if later,
there are extenuating circumstances for the delay in
enrollment, as determined pursuant to guidelines issued by
the Secretary.
``(F) There are insufficient funds available for training
under this chapter, taking into account the limitation under
section 236(a)(2)(A).
``(G) The duration of training appropriate for the
individual to obtain suitable employment exceeds the
individual's maximum entitlement to basic and additional
trade readjustment allowances and, in addition, financial
support available through other Federal or State programs,
including title III of the Job Training Partnership Act (29
U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) or chapter 5 of subtitle B of title I of
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, that would enable the
individual to complete a suitable training program cannot be
assured.
``(2) The Secretary shall specify the duration of the
waiver under paragraph (1) and shall periodically review the
waiver to determine whether the basis for issuing the waiver
remains applicable. If at any time the Secretary determines
such basis is no longer applicable to the worker, the
Secretary shall revoke the waiver.
``(3) Pursuant to the agreement under section 239, the
Secretary may authorize the State or State agency to carry
out activities described in paragraph (1) (except for the
determination under subparagraphs (F) and (G) of paragraph
(1)). Such agreement shall include a requirement that the
State or State agency submit to the Secretary the written
statements provided pursuant to paragraph (1) and a statement
of the reasons for the waiver.
``(4) The Secretary shall submit an annual report to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives identifying the
number of workers who received waivers and the average
duration of such waivers issued under this subsection during
the preceding year.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 231(a)(5)(C) of such Act
(19 U.S.C. 2291(a)(5)(C)) is amended by striking
``certified''.

SEC. 8. PROVISION OF TRADE READJUSTMENT ALLOWANCES DURING
BREAKS IN TRAINING.

Section 233(f) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2293(f))
is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking
``14 days'' and inserting ``30 days''.

SEC. 9. INCREASE IN ANNUAL TOTAL AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS FOR
TRAINING.

Section 236(a)(2)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2296(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``$80,000,000'' and all
that follows through $70,000,000 and inserting
``$150,000,000''.

SEC. 10. ELIMINATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT.

(a) In General.--Section 236(d) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2296(d)) is amended by striking the last sentence.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
takes effect on October 1, 1999.

SEC. 11. COORDINATION WITH ONE-STOP DELIVERY SYSTEMS, THE JOB
TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT, AND THE WORKFORCE
INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998.

(a) Coordination With One-Stop Delivery Systems.--Section
235 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2295) is amended by
inserting ``, including the services provided through one-
stop delivery systems described in section 134(c) of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (19 U.S.C. 2864(c))'' before
the period at the end of the first sentence.
(b) Coordination With Job Training Partnership Act and
Workforce Investment Act of 1998.--Section 239(e) such Act
(19 U.S.C. 2311(e)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``or title I of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998'' and inserting ``or under
the provisions relating to dislocated worker employment and
training activities set forth in chapter 5 of subtitle B of
title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C.
2861 et seq.), as the case may be,''; and
(2) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``Such coordination shall include use of common reporting
systems and elements, including common elements relating to
participant data and performance outcomes (including
employment, retention of employment, and wages).''.

SEC. 12. SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.

(a) In General.--Part II of subchapter B of chapter 2 of
title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2295 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 238A. SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.

``(a) Application.--Any adversely affected worker covered
by a certification under subchapter A of this chapter may
file an application with the Secretary for the provision of
supportive services, including transportation, child and
dependent care, and other similar services.
``(b) Conditions.--The Secretary may approve an application
filed under subsection (a) and provide supportive services to
an adversely affected worker only if the Secretary determines
that--
``(1) the provision of such services is necessary to enable
the worker to participate in or complete training; and
``(2) the provision of such services is consistent with the
provision of supportive services to participants under the
program of employment and training assistance for dislocated
workers carried out under title III of the Job Training
Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), as in effect on the
date of enactment of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform
Act of 1999, or under the provisions relating to dislocated
worker employment and training activities set forth in
chapter 5 of subtitle B of title I of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2861 et seq.), as the case
may be.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of such
Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 238 the following:

``Sec. 238A. Supportive services.''.

SEC. 13. ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Section 225.--Section 225(b) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2275(b)) is amended in each of paragraphs (1) and
(2) by striking ``or subchapter D''.
(b) Section 240.--Section 240(a) of such Act (19 U.S.C.
2312(a)) is amended by striking ``subchapter B of''.

SEC. 14. AVAILABILITY OF CONTINGENCY FUNDS.

(a) In General.--Section 245 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2317), as amended by section 2, is amended--
(1) by striking ``There are authorized'' and inserting
``(a) In General.--There are authorized''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Contingency Funds.--Subject to the limitation
contained in section 236(a)(2), if in any fiscal year the
funds available to carry out the programs under this chapter
are exhausted, there shall be made available from funds in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated amounts sufficient to
carry out such programs for the remainder of the fiscal
year.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on--
(1) July 1, 1999; or
(2) the date of enactment of this Act,

whichever is earlier.

SEC. 15. REAUTHORIZATION OF ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS.

(a) In General.--Section 256(b) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2346(b)) is amended by striking ``for the period
beginning October 1, 1998, and ending June 30, 1999'' and
inserting ``for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2001''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
takes effect on--
(1) July 1, 1999; or
(2) the date of enactment of this Act,

whichever is earlier.

SEC. 16. EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION PROVISION.

(a) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this
Act, this Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect
on--

[[Page 990]]

(1) October 1, 1999; or
(2) 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act,

whichever is later.
(b) Transition.--The Secretary of Labor may promulgate such
rules as the Secretary determines to be necessary to provide
for the implementation of the amendments made by this Act.
______

By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
S. 221. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act to combat fraud and price-gouging committed in
connection with the provision of consumer goods and services for the
cleanup, repair, and recovery from the effects of a major disaster
declared by the President, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.

the disaster victims crime prevention act of 1999

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Disaster Victims
Crime Prevention Act of 1999, which would stop fraud against victims of
federal disasters. As with legislation I offered in the past, my
measure would make it a federal crime to defraud persons through the
sale of materials or services for cleanup, repair, and recovery
following a federally declared disaster. The senior Senator from Hawaii
[Mr. Inouye] joins me in sponsoring this bill.
Everyone knows the tremendous costs incurred during a natural
disaster. During the winter of 1997 through the spring of 1998, there
were tornadoes and flooding in the southeastern states that caused $1
billion in damage and resulted in at least 132 deaths. From December
1996 to January 1997, severe flooding over portions of California,
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Montana resulted in $3 billion in
damages, while in September 1996, Hurricane Fran struck North Carolina
and Virginia at a cost of $5 billion. During the past decade, there
have been a number of deadly natural disasters throughout the United
States and its territories including hurricanes, floods, earthquakes,
tornadoes, ice storms, wildfires, mudslides, and blizzards.
Through round-the-clock media coverage, Americans have front row
seats to the destruction caused by these catastrophic events. We
sympathetically watch television as families sift through the debris of
their lives and as men and women assess the loss of their businesses.
We witness the concern of others, such as Red Cross volunteers passing
out blankets and food and citizens traveling hundreds of miles to help
rebuild strangers' homes.
Despite the outpouring of public support that follows these
disasters, there are unscrupulous individuals who prey on the trusting
and unsuspecting victims whose immediate concerns are applying for
disaster assistance, seeking temporary shelter, and rebuilding their
lives.
My interest in this was heightened by Hurricane Iniki, which on
September 11, 1992, leveled the island of Kauai in Hawaii and caused
$1.6 billion in damage. As the people of Kauai began the recovery and
rebuilding process, a contractor promising quick home repair took
disaster benefits from numerous homeowners and fled the area without
completing promised construction. Most of these fraud victims never
found relief.
Every disaster has examples of individuals who are victimized twice--
first by the disaster and later by unconscionable price hikes and
fraudulent contractors. In the wake of the 1993 Midwest flooding, Iowa
officials found that some vendors raised the price of portable toilets
from $60 a month to $60 a day! In other flood-hit areas, carpet
cleaners hiked their prices to $350 per hour, while telemarketers set
up telephone banks to solicit funds for phony flood-related charities.
Nor will television viewers forget the scenes of beleaguered South
Floridians buying generators, plastic sheeting, and bottled water at
outrageous prices in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew.
The Disaster Victims Crime Prevention Act of 1999 would criminalize
some of the activities undertaken by unprincipled people whose sole
intent is to defraud hard-working men and women. This legislation will
make it a federal crime to defraud persons through the sale of
materials or services for cleanup, repair, and recovery following a
federally declared disaster.
While the Stafford Natural Disaster Act currently provides for civil
and criminal penalties for the misuse of disaster funds, it fails to
address contractor fraud. To fill this gap, our legislation would make
it a federal crime to take money fraudulently from a disaster victim
and fail to provide the agreed upon material or service for the
cleanup, repair, and recovery.
The Stafford Act also fails to address price gouging. Although it is
the responsibility of the states to impose restrictions on price
increases prior to a federal disaster declaration, federal penalties
for price gouging should be imposed once a federal disaster has been
declared. I am pleased to incorporate a provision in this bill
initiated by our former colleague and cosponsor of this legislation in
the 105th Congress, Senator John Glenn, who, following Hurricane
Andrew, sought to combat price gouging and excessive pricing of goods
and services legislatively.
I am pleased to note that there is extensive cooperation among the
various state and local offices that deal with fraud and consumer
protection issues, and it is quite common for these fine men and women
to lend their expertise to their colleagues from out-of-state during a
natural disaster. This exchange of experiences and practical solutions
has created a strong support network.
My bill would ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency
develop public information in order to ensure that residents within a
federally declared disaster area do not fall victim to fraud. The
development of public information materials to advise disaster victims
about ways to detect and avoid fraud would come under the jurisdiction
of the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
At the present time, FEMA, under the guidance of its director, James
Lee Witt, has done an outstanding job in meeting natural disasters. I
believe there is only admiration and praise for the cooperation that
now exists between FEMA and state agencies dealing with natural
disasters. Therefore, I have no doubt that government at all levels
would benefit from the dissemination of federal anti-fraud related
material following the declaration of a disaster by the President.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass legislation that
sends a strong message to anyone thinking of defrauding a disaster
victim or raising prices unnecessarily on everyday commodities during a
natural disaster.
______

By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 22. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for
national standard to prohibit the operation of motor vehicles by
intoxicated individuals; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.

safe and sober streets act of 1999

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Safe and
Sober Streets Act of 1999 with Senator DeWine--a bill that will, if
enacted into law, save 500-700 lives a year. The Safe and Sober Streets
Act establishes a legal limit for drunken driving at .08 Blood Alcohol
Content (BAC) in all 50 states.
Mr. President, Senator DeWine and I offered this very bill last March
as an amendment to the ISTEA reauthorization bill, now known as TEA-21,
on behalf of the millions victims of drunk driving crashes. We were
joined by 22 other cosponsors. I am proud to say that the Senate--this
body--voted 62 to 32 to adopt this amendment. It was supported by one
half of each caucus.
The Senate cast this strong vote because it knew that establishing
.08 as the legal definition of drunken driving is responsible and will
save lives. The Senate knew that this bill would encourage states to
adopt .08 BAC laws. Without it, states will get bogged down in
legislative gridlock and will not be able to pass their own .08 BAC
laws. As a result, lives that could have been saved will have instead
been lost.

[[Page 991]]

Mr. President, the Senate spoke loud and clear when it voted to adopt
.08. We voted to save lives. We voted to protect our families from the
grief associated with losing a loved one to drunk driving. We resisted
the pressure of a powerful special interest and voted against drunk
driving. The President called on Congress to pass the bill and he would
have signed it into law.
The problem came after the Senate's resounding vote. The special
interests stepped up their pressure tactics to stop our .08 amendment.
Despite commitments granted, the House Rules Committee denied a vote.
Democracy was squelched in back-room politics.
Last May, Mr. President, the TEA-21 conference leaders--seven
people--ignored the will of the Senate and the American people. The
final TEA-21 bill dropped the .08 BAC provision and replaced it with a
$500 million, six-year incentive grant program specifically for .08
BAC. The incentive grant program, as constructed in TEA-21, will not
produce national .08 standard.
Mr. President, when it comes to an issue like the minimum drinking
age, which I authored here in the Senate in 1984, or the Zero Tolerance
for underage drinking and driving, authored by Senator Byrd in 1995 or
.08 in 1998, there are only two things the federal government can do.
We can encourage the states to act by giving them money or withholding
it until they have acted. The former has never worked, but the latter
already has.
Withholding federal resources, which has been tested and proven
constitutionally sound, has worked. All 50 states have a minimum
drinking age of 21. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
tell us that the 21 law has saved the lives of over 10,000 precious
young Americans. South Carolina just became the 50th state to pass a
Zero Tolerance statute. No state has ever lost federal highway dollars
because of the federal government's efforts to insure that our nation's
young people do not drink and drive.
The only consequence has been that lives have been saved.
Mr. President, under the bill that I am introducing today, all states
would have three years in which to adopt .08 BAC as the DWI definition.
After those three years, states would, as with the 21 drinking age and
Zero Tolerance, face a withholding of five percent of their highway
construction funds. Those who voted against the Safe and Sober Streets
Act or prevented a vote in the other body said this was a choice
between sanctions and incentives. It is not. This was, and is, a choice
between what works and what does not.
Worse, the incentive grant program contained in TEA-21 is a classic
case of how not to construct an incentive grant program. For example,
most of the money goes to states that have already adopted .08 laws.
Why provide incentive grants to states which have already acted? What
incentive does a state need to pass .08 if it has already passed .08?
Yet, that's what the $500 million incentive grant program does.
Mr. President, we have provided a fig leaf to cover our shame for
failing to do what 70 percent of the American people expected us to
do--to override the narrow special interest and act to protect public
health and safety.
Mr. President, we know that .08 BAC is the right level for DWI.
Adopting this level will simply bring the United States into the ranks
of most other industrialized nations in setting reasonable drunk
driving limits. Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Austria and
Switzerland have .08 BAC limits. France, Belgium, Finland and the
Netherlands' limit is .05 BAC. Sweden's is .02 BAC.
Last year, supporters of our amendment included President Clinton.
The National Safety Council. The Center for Disease Control. The
American Automobile Manufacturers Association. Kemper, State Farm and
Nationwide insurance companies. Mothers Against Drunk Driving. American
College of Emergency Physicians. Consumer Federation of America.
National Fire Protection Association. Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety. Newspaper editorial boards, such as The New York Times, The
Washington Post, and The Baltimore Sun.
But more important than the support of scores of businesses, health
and science organizations, governmental agencies, public opinion
leaders, is the support from the families and friends of victims of
drunk driving--like the Fraziers of Westminister, Maryland, and Louise
and Ronald Hammell, of Tuckerton, New Jersey. Brenda and Randy lost
their nine year old daughter, Ashley, to drunk driving. Louise and
Ronald lost their 17 year old son, Matthew, to drunk driving.
Mr. President, organizations who support this bill have one thing in
mind: the public's interest. The health and safety of our communities
and of our roads is in the public's interest.
Every thirty minutes, someone in America--a mother, husband, child,
grandchild, brother, sister--dies in an alcohol related crash. In the
United States, 39 percent of all fatal crashes are alcohol related.
Alcohol is the single greatest factor in motor vehicle deaths and
injuries.
.08 is a reasonable and responsible level at which to draw the line
in fighting drunk driving. It is at .08 that a person is drunk and
should not be driving.
Adopting .08 BAC is just common sense. Think of it this way: you are
in your car at night, driving on a two lane road. Your child is sitting
next to you. You see a car's headlights approaching. The driver is a
170 pound man who just came from a bar, and drank five bottles of beer
in one hour on an empty stomach. If he were driving in Maryland, he
would not be considered drunk. But if he were driving in Virginia, he
would be. Does this make sense? We should not have a patchwork quilt of
laws when we are dealing with drunk driving.
This bill--.08--simply reflects what sound science and research
proves, and interjects some reality into our definition of drunk
driving and applies it to all 50 states.
No objective, credible person or organization can deny that adopting
.08 BAC laws is the right thing to do. This bill does not eliminate the
incentive grant program. In deference to those who authorized the
incentive grant program, but who also supported my .08 bill, this bill
specifically keeps the grant program. States will have the benefit of
incentives for the first five years. After that, the money will be
withheld. But, given past experience, I expect no state to lose funds.
The Senate has strongly supported this once. It should do so again. I
urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.
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. 222

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 ``Safe and Sober Streets Act
of 1999''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL STANDARD TO PROHIBIT OPERATION OF MOTOR
VEHICLES BY INTOXICATED INDIVIDUALS.

(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 1 of title 23,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Sec. 165. National standard to prohibit operation of motor
vehicles by intoxicated individuals

``(a) Withholding of Apportionments for Noncompliance.--
``(1) Fiscal year 2003.--The Secretary shall withhold 5
percent of the amount required to be apportioned to any State
under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b)
on October 1, 2002, if the State does not meet the
requirements of paragraph (3) on that date.
``(2) Subsequent fiscal years.--The Secretary shall
withhold 10 percent (including any amounts withheld under
paragraph (1)) of the amount required to be apportioned to
any State under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of
section 104(b) on October 1, 2003, and on October 1 of each
fiscal year thereafter, if the State does not meet the
requirements of paragraph (3) on that date.
``(3) Requirements.--A State meets the requirements of this
paragraph if the State has enacted and is enforcing a law
providing that an individual who has an alcohol concentration
of 0.08 percent or greater while operating a motor vehicle in
the State is guilty of the offense of driving while
intoxicated (or

[[Page 992]]

an equivalent offense that carries the greatest penalty under
the law of the State for operating a motor vehicle after
having consumed alcohol).
``(b) Period of Availability; Effect of Compliance and
Noncompliance.--
``(1) Period of availability of withheld funds.--
``(A) Funds withheld on or before september 30, 2004.--Any
funds withheld under subsection (a) from apportionment to any
State on or before September 30, 2004, shall remain available
until the end of the third fiscal year following the fiscal
year for which the funds are authorized to be appropriated.
``(B) Funds withheld after september 30, 2004.--No funds
withheld under this section from apportionment to any State
after September 30, 2004, shall be available for
apportionment to the State.
``(2) Apportionment of withheld funds after compliance.--
If, before the last day of the period for which funds
withheld under subsection (a) from apportionment are to
remain available for apportionment to a State under paragraph
(1)(A), the State meets the requirements of subsection
(a)(3), the Secretary shall, on the first day on which the
State meets the requirements, apportion to the State the
funds withheld under subsection (a) that remain available for
apportionment to the State.
``(3) Period of availability of subsequently apportioned
funds.--
``(A) In general.--Any funds apportioned under paragraph
(2) shall remain available for expenditure until the end of
the third fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the
funds are so apportioned.
``(B) Treatment of certain funds.--Sums not obligated at
the end of the period referred to in subparagraph (A) shall
lapse.
``(4) Effect of noncompliance.--If, at the end of the
period for which funds withheld under subsection (a) from
apportionment are available for apportionment to a State
under paragraph (1)(A), the State does not meet the
requirements of subsection (a)(3), the funds shall lapse.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of
chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``165. National standard to prohibit operation of motor vehicles by
intoxicated individuals.''.
______

By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Robb, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Daschle, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Torricelli,
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Inouye, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr.
Johnson):
S. 223. A bill to help communities modernize public school
facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

the public school modernization act

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President I rise today to introduce the Public
School Modernization Act of 1999. I am pleased to be joined in this
effort by my cosponsors, Senators Robb, Kennedy, Daschle, Conrad,
Bingaman, Edwards, Torricelli, Kerry, Breaux, Inouye, Boxer, and
Johnson.
Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today is about
opportunity. If there is one essential job of a responsive government,
it is to provide opportunity--especially for young Americans. A solid
education allows young people to open the door to a world of
opportunity.
However, too many American children open the door each morning to
enter a schoolhouse with inadequate facilities for a modern learning
environment. To help remedy this situation, my Public School
Modernization Act will fuel a nationwide effort to renovate older
schools and build new, state-of-the-art educational facilities.
Mr. President, that is why this legislation must be at the top of the
agenda for the 106th Congress. As we face the new millennium, we must
invest in our young people--our future. Congress must look ahead to the
challenges of the next century and prepare a new generation of
Americans to continue our world leadership in innovation, industry,
arts and science.
Mr. President, this legislation will improve the very base, the very
foundation of American education. Our children's educational experience
begins with the buildings they learn in every day.
We know the condition of these buildings has a direct impact on
learning. A Georgetown University study revealed that the achievement
levels of students taught in substandard educational facilities were 11
percent lower than students in modern facilities. Similarly, a 1996
Virginia study also found an 11 percentile point difference between
students in substandard buildings and those in modern facilities. Both
of these studies were controlled for other variables, such as a
student's socioeconomic status.
Mr. President, this data, and numerous other studies like it, allows
us to formulate a simple equation: Modern Schools Equal Better
Learning.
Unfortunately, too many of our nation's school buildings fall into
the inadequate category. A 1995 General Accounting Office report
revealed that one-third of all schools, serving 14 million students,
need extensive repair or replacement. In addition, 7 million students
attend school every day with life-threatening safety code violations.
How can we expect our children to effectively focus on their lessons in
such an environment?
In my home state of New Jersey we have a range of school
modernization needs. The condition of low income, urban school
facilities were at issue in a decades-long lawsuit that was recently
settled. However, the problem is not just an urban problem. In my
State, and across the U.S., it is a suburban and rural problem as well.
For example, suburban Montgomery Township has seen its enrollment
grow by 99.6 percent over last 6 years. Another suburban district,
South Brunswick, has seen enrollment grow by 60 percent in the past
five years. One South Brunswick's student, sixth grader Amy Wolf, told
me that the overcrowding of facilities has prevented teachers from
working on a ``one to one'' basis with students.
This overcrowding often costs students their normal recreation area.
Former playgrounds and sports fields on many suburban school campuses
are becoming classroom trailer parks because of escalating enrollment.
In addition to overcrowding, suburban schools are crumbling. Many of
these facilities, built quickly in the 1960s, are not holding up well
and need extensive repair.
And in older, urban schools the condition and age of buildings is
making it harder to move more computers into the classrooms or wire
schools to the Internet. According to the GAO report, nearly half of
all schools don't have an electrical system ready for the full-scale
use of computers. In addition, 60 percent lack the conduits necessary
to connect classrooms to a computer network.
Mr. President, to remedy this situation, my Public School
Modernization Act presents school districts all over the country with a
unique opportunity to renovate existing buildings and build new
schoolhouses from the ground up. The bill will provide special bond
authority to school districts that will allow these districts to raise
the necessary funds for school modernization by offering Federal tax
credits to bondholders in lieu of traditional interest payments by
States or school districts.
The low cost feature for school districts is a simple concept. The
districts will not be obligated to pay interest to the bondholders.
Rather the bondholders would receive a Federal tax credit equivalent to
interest payments.
Mr. President, these savings will free up local school district funds
for teaching and learning. The savings could also result in significant
property tax relief for the community.
In addition, this federal legislation will not interfere in local
control of education. The Public School Modernization Act offers
opportunity--not continuous Federal oversight or Federal agency sign-
off for every project. The act simply requires States and school
districts to conduct a survey of their school facility needs and make
sure that the bonding authority is distributed in a way that ensures
that schools with the greatest needs and least resources do indeed
benefit from the program.
This new bond authority will be split between two programs. Most of
the authority will result from a new program, called Qualified School
Construction Bonds. The majority of this bond authority, 65 percent,
will be allocated to States in proportion to each State's share of
funds under the Title I Basic Grant formula. The remaining 35 percent
of the authority to issue these

[[Page 993]]

special, 15 year bonds, would be allocated to the 100 school districts
with the largest number of low income children and in addition, to as
many as 25 districts that demonstrate a particular need, such as very
high enrollment growth or a low level of resources.
The rest of the bond authority will come from an existing program,
Qualified Zone Academy Bonds, created by the Taxpayer Relief Act of
1997. It also provides a tax credit in lieu of interest, but for a
variety of school expenses, including school modernization. This bond
program will be significantly expanded and improved by this
legislation.
Mr. President, the time for this legislation is now, and it must be
enacted during this Congress. The vast majority of Americans support a
major federal investment in modernizing public schools. It should be a
bipartisan goal, and I hope that a number of Republicans will cosponsor
on this bill before it becomes law.
The Public School Modernization Act is long overdue, especially when
you consider that President Eisenhower first called for Federal school
construction legislation in his 1955 State of the Union address. I hope
we can make this proposal a reality before the 45th anniversary of
President Eisenhower's call to action.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 223

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 ``Public School Modernization
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) According to the General Accounting Office, one-third
of all elementary and secondary schools in the United States,
serving 14,000,000 students, need extensive repair or
renovation.
(2) School infrastructure problems exist across the
country, in urban, suburban, and rural school districts.
(3) Many States and school districts will need to build new
schools in order to accommodate increasing student
enrollments; the Department of Education has predicted that
the Nation will need an additional 6,000 schools by 2006.
(4) Many schools do not have the physical infrastructure to
take advantage of computers and other technology needed to
meet the challenges of the next century.
(5) The Federal Government, by providing tax credits to
bondholders to substitute for interest paid by school
districts, can lower the costs of State and local school
infrastructure investment, creating an incentive for States
and localities to increase their own infrastructure
improvement efforts and help ensure that all students are
able to attend schools that are equipped for the 21st
century.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide Federal
tax credits to bondholders, in lieu of interest owed by
school districts, to help States and localities to modernize
public school facilities and build the additional public
schools needed to educate the increasing number of students
who will enroll in the next decade.

SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF INCENTIVES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

(a) In General.--Part IV of subchapter U of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to incentives for
education zones) is amended to read as follows:

``PART IV--INCENTIVES FOR QUALIFIED PUBLIC SCHOOL MODERNIZATION BONDS

``Sec. 1397E. Credit to holders of qualified public school
modernization bonds.
``Sec. 1397F. Qualified zone academy bonds.
``Sec. 1397G. Qualified school construction bonds.

``SEC. 1397E. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED PUBLIC SCHOOL
MODERNIZATION BONDS.

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of a taxpayer who
holds a qualified public school modernization bond on the
credit allowance date of such bond which occurs during the
taxable year, there shall be allowed as a credit against the
tax imposed by this chapter for such taxable year the amount
determined under subsection (b).
``(b) Amount of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined
under this subsection with respect to any qualified public
school modernization bond is the amount equal to the product
of--
``(A) the credit rate determined by the Secretary under
paragraph (2) for the month in which such bond was issued,
multiplied by
``(B) the face amount of the bond held by the taxpayer on
the credit allowance date.
``(2) Determination.--During each calendar month, the
Secretary shall determine a credit rate which shall apply to
bonds issued during the following calendar month. The credit
rate for any month is the percentage which the Secretary
estimates will on average permit the issuance of qualified
public school modernization bonds without discount and
without interest cost to the issuer.
``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
``(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection (a)
for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under part IV of
subchapter A (other than subpart C thereof, relating to
refundable credits).
``(2) Carryover of unused credit.--If the credit allowable
under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed by
paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be
carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the
credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable year.
``(d) Qualified Public School Modernization Bond; Credit
Allowance Date.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified public school modernization bond.--The term
`qualified public school modernization bond' means--
``(A) a qualified zone academy bond, and
``(B) a qualified school construction bond.
``(2) Credit allowance date.--The term `credit allowance
date' means, with respect to any issue, the last day of the
1-year period beginning on the date of issuance of such issue
and the last day of each successive 1-year period thereafter.
``(e) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this part--
``(1) Local educational agency.--The term `local
educational agency' has the meaning given to such term by
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965. Such term includes the local educational agency that
serves the District of Columbia but does not include any
other State agency.
``(2) Bond.--The term `bond' includes any obligation.
``(3) State.--The term `State' includes the District of
Columbia and any possession of the United States.
``(4) Public school facility.--The term `public school
facility' shall not include any stadium or other facility
primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions or other
events for which admission is charged to the general public.
``(f) Credit Included in Gross Income.--Gross income
includes the amount of the credit allowed to the taxpayer
under this section and the amount so included shall be
treated as interest income.
``(g) Bonds Held By Regulated Investment Companies.--If any
qualified public school modernization bond is held by a
regulated investment company, the credit determined under
subsection (a) shall be allowed to shareholders of such
company under procedures prescribed by the Secretary.

``SEC. 1397F. QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.

``(a) Qualified Zone Academy Bond.--For purposes of this
part--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified zone academy bond'
means any bond issued as part of an issue if--
``(A) 95 percent or more of the proceeds of such issue are
to be used for a qualified purpose with respect to a
qualified zone academy established by a local educational
agency,
``(B) the bond is issued by a State or local government
within the jurisdiction of which such academy is located,
``(C) the issuer--
``(i) designates such bond for purposes of this section,
``(ii) certifies that it has written assurances that the
private business contribution requirement of paragraph (2)
will be met with respect to such academy, and
``(iii) certifies that it has the written approval of the
local educational agency for such bond issuance, and
``(D) the term of each bond which is part of such issue
does not exceed 15 years.
``(2) Private business contribution requirement.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
private business contribution requirement of this paragraph
is met with respect to any issue if the local educational
agency that established the qualified zone academy has
written commitments from private entities to make qualified
contributions having a present value (as of the date of
issuance of the issue) of not less than 10 percent of the
proceeds of the issue.
``(B) Qualified contributions.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the term `qualified contribution' means any
contribution (of a type and quality acceptable to the local
educational agency) of--
``(i) equipment for use in the qualified zone academy
(including state-of-the-art technology and vocational
equipment),

[[Page 994]]

``(ii) technical assistance in developing curriculum or in
training teachers in order to promote appropriate market
driven technology in the classroom,
``(iii) services of employees as volunteer mentors,
``(iv) internships, field trips, or other educational
opportunities outside the academy for students, or
``(v) any other property or service specified by the local
educational agency.
``(3) Qualified zone academy.--The term `qualified zone
academy' means any public school (or academic program within
a public school) which is established by and operated under
the supervision of a local educational agency to provide
education or training below the postsecondary level if--
``(A) such public school or program (as the case may be) is
designed in cooperation with business to enhance the academic
curriculum, increase graduation and employment rates, and
better prepare students for the rigors of college and the
increasingly complex workforce,
``(B) students in such public school or program (as the
case may be) will be subject to the same academic standards
and assessments as other students educated by the local
educational agency,
``(C) the comprehensive education plan of such public
school or program is approved by the local educational
agency, and
``(D)(i) such public school is located in an empowerment
zone or enterprise community (including any such zone or
community designated after the date of enactment of this
section), or
``(ii) there is a reasonable expectation (as of the date of
issuance of the bonds) that at least 35 percent of the
students attending such school or participating in such
program (as the case may be) will be eligible for free or
reduced-cost lunches under the school lunch program
established under the National School Lunch Act.
``(4) Qualified purpose.--The term `qualified purpose'
means, with respect to any qualified zone academy--
``(A) constructing, rehabilitating, or repairing the public
school facility in which the academy is established,
``(B) providing equipment for use at such academy,
``(C) developing course materials for education to be
provided at such academy, and
``(D) training teachers and other school personnel in such
academy.
``(5) Temporary period exception.--A bond shall not be
treated as failing to meet the requirement of paragraph
(1)(A) solely by reason of the fact that the proceeds of the
issue of which such bond is a part are invested for a
reasonable temporary period (but not more than 36 months)
until such proceeds are needed for the purpose for which such
issue was issued. Any earnings on such proceeds during such
period shall be treated as proceeds of the issue for purposes
of applying paragraph (1)(A).
``(b) Limitations on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
``(1) In general.--There is a national zone academy bond
limitation for each calendar year. Such limitation is--
``(A) $400,000,000 for 1999,
``(B) $1,400,000,000 for 2000,
``(C) $1,400,000,000 for 2001, and
``(D) except as provided in paragraph (3), zero after 2001.
``(2) Allocation of limitation.--
``(A) Allocation among states.--
``(i) 1999 limitation.--The national zone academy bond
limitation for calendar year 1999 shall be allocated by the
Secretary among the States on the basis of their respective
populations of individuals below the poverty line (as defined
by the Office of Management and Budget).
``(ii) Limitation after 1999.--The national zone academy
bond limitation for any calendar year after 1999 shall be
allocated by the Secretary among the States in the manner
prescribed by section 1397G(d); except that, in making the
allocation under this clause, the Secretary shall take into
account Basic Grants attributable to large local educational
agencies (as defined in section 1397G(e)).
``(B) Allocation to local educational agencies.--The
limitation amount allocated to a State under subparagraph (A)
shall be allocated by the State education agency to qualified
zone academies within such State.
``(C) Designation subject to limitation amount.--The
maximum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any
calendar year which may be designated under subsection (a)
with respect to any qualified zone academy shall not exceed
the limitation amount allocated to such academy under
subparagraph (B) for such calendar year.
``(3) Carryover of unused limitation.--If for any calendar
year--
``(A) the limitation amount under this subsection for any
State, exceeds
``(B) the amount of bonds issued during such year which are
designated under subsection (a) with respect to qualified
zone academies within such State,

the limitation amount under this subsection for such State
for the following calendar year shall be increased by the
amount of such excess. The preceding sentence shall not apply
if such following calendar year is after 2003.

``SEC. 1397G. QUALIFIED SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BONDS.

``(a) Qualified School Construction Bond.--For purposes of
this part, the term `qualified school construction bond'
means any bond issued as part of an issue if--
``(1) 95 percent or more of the proceeds of such issue are
to be used for the construction, rehabilitation, or repair of
a public school facility,
``(2) the bond is issued by a State or local government
within the jurisdiction of which such school is located,
``(3) the issuer designates such bond for purposes of this
section, and
``(4) the term of each bond which is part of such issue
does not exceed 15 years.
Rules similar to the rules of section 1397F(a)(5) shall apply
for purposes of paragraph (1).
``(b) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--The
maximum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any
calendar year which may be designated under subsection (a) by
any issuer shall not exceed the sum of--
``(1) the limitation amount allocated under subsection (d)
for such calendar year to such issuer, and
``(2) if such issuer is a large local educational agency
(as defined in subsection (e)) or is issuing on behalf of
such an agency, the limitation amount allocated under
subsection (e) for such calendar year to such agency.
``(c) National Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
``(1) In general.--There is a national qualified school
construction bond limitation for each calendar year equal to
the dollar amount specified in paragraph (2) for such year,
reduced, in the case of calendar years 2000 and 2001, by 1.5
percent of such amount.
``(2) Dollar amount specified.--The dollar amount specified
in this paragraph is--
``(A) $9,700,000,000 for 2000,
``(B) $9,700,000,000 for 2001, and
``(C) except as provided in subsection (f), zero after
2001.
``(d) 65-Percent of Limitation Allocated Among States.--
``(1) In general.--Sixty-five percent of the limitation
applicable under subsection (c) for any calendar year shall
be allocated among the States under paragraph (2) by the
Secretary. The limitation amount allocated to a State under
the preceding sentence shall be allocated by the State
education agency to issuers within such State and such
allocations may be made only if there is an approved State
application.
``(2) Allocation formula.--The amount to be allocated under
paragraph (1) for any calendar year shall be allocated among
the States in proportion to the respective amounts each such
State received for Basic Grants under subpart 2 of part A of
title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 6331 et seq.) for the most recent fiscal year
ending before such calendar year. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, Basic Grants attributable to large local
educational agencies (as defined in subsection (e)) shall be
disregarded.
``(3) Minimum allocations to states.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall adjust the
allocations under this subsection for any calendar year for
each State to the extent necessary to ensure that the sum
of--
``(i) the amount allocated to such State under this
subsection for such year, and
``(ii) the aggregate amounts allocated under subsection (e)
to large local educational agencies in such State for such
year,

is not less than an amount equal to such State's minimum
percentage of 65 percent of the national qualified school
construction bond limitation under subsection (c) for the
calendar year.
``(B) Minimum percentage.--A State's minimum percentage for
any calendar year is the minimum percentage described in
section 1124(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6334(d)) for such State for the most
recent fiscal year ending before such calendar year.
``(4) Allocations to certain possessions.--The amount to be
allocated under paragraph (1) to any possession of the United
States other than Puerto Rico shall be the amount which would
have been allocated if all allocations under paragraph (1)
were made on the basis of respective populations of
individuals below the poverty line (as defined by the Office
of Management and Budget). In making other allocations, the
amount to be allocated under paragraph (1) shall be reduced
by the aggregate amount allocated under this paragraph to
possessions of the United States.
``(5) Approved state application.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term `approved State application' means an
application which is approved by the Secretary of Education
and which includes--
``(A) the results of a recent publicly-available survey
(undertaken by the State with the involvement of local
education officials, members of the public, and experts in
school construction and management) of such State's needs for
public school facilities, including descriptions of--
``(i) health and safety problems at such facilities,

[[Page 995]]

``(ii) the capacity of public schools in the State to house
projected enrollments, and
``(iii) the extent to which the public schools in the State
offer the physical infrastructure needed to provide a high-
quality education to all students, and
``(B) a description of how the State will allocate to local
educational agencies, or otherwise use, its allocation under
this subsection to address the needs identified under
subparagraph (A), including a description of how it will--
``(i) give highest priority to localities with the greatest
needs, as demonstrated by inadequate or overcrowded school
facilities coupled with a low level of resources to meet
those needs,
``(ii) use its allocation under this subsection to assist
localities that lack the fiscal capacity to issue bonds on
their own, including the issuance of bonds by the State on
behalf of such localities, and
``(iii) ensure that its allocation under this subsection is
used only to supplement, and not supplant, the amount of
school construction, rehabilitation, and repair in the State
that would have occurred in the absence of such allocation.

Any allocation under paragraph (1) by a State education
agency shall be binding if such agency reasonably determined
that the allocation was in accordance with the plan approved
under this paragraph.
``(e) 35-Percent of Limitation Allocated Among Largest
School Districts.--
``(1) In general.--Thirty-five percent of the limitation
applicable under subsection (c) for any calendar year shall
be allocated under paragraph (2) by the Secretary among local
educational agencies which are large local educational
agencies for such year. No qualified school construction bond
may be issued by reason of an allocation to a large local
educational agency under the preceding sentence unless such
agency has an approved local application.
``(2) Allocation formula.--The amount to be allocated under
paragraph (1) for any calendar year shall be allocated among
large local educational agencies in proportion to the
respective amounts each such agency received for Basic Grants
under subpart 2 of part A of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6331 et seq.) for
the most recent fiscal year ending before such calendar year.
``(3) Large local educational agency.--For purposes of this
section, the term `large local educational agency' means,
with respect to a calendar year, any local educational agency
if such agency is--
``(A) among the 100 local educational agencies with the
largest numbers of children aged 5 through 17 from families
living below the poverty level, as determined by the
Secretary using the most recent data available from the
Department of Commerce that are satisfactory to the
Secretary, or
``(B) 1 of not more than 25 local educational agencies
(other than those described in clause (i)) that the Secretary
of Education determines (based on the most recent data
available satisfactory to the Secretary) are in particular
need of assistance, based on a low level of resources for
school construction, a high level of enrollment growth, or
such other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate.
``(4) Approved local application.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term `approved local application' means an
application which is approved by the Secretary of Education
and which includes--
``(A) the results of a recent publicly-available survey
(undertaken by the local educational agency with the
involvement of school officials, members of the public, and
experts in school construction and management) of such
agency's needs for public school facilities, including
descriptions of--
``(i) the overall condition of the local educational
agency's school facilities, including health and safety
problems,
``(ii) the capacity of the agency's schools to house
projected enrollments, and
``(iii) the extent to which the agency's schools offer the
physical infrastructure needed to provide a high-quality
education to all students,
``(B) a description of how the local educational agency
will use its allocation under this subsection to address the
needs identified under subparagraph (A), and
``(C) a description of how the local educational agency
will ensure that its allocation under this subsection is used
only to supplement, and not supplant, the amount of school
construction, rehabilitation, or repair in the locality that
would have occurred in the absence of such allocation.

A rule similar to the rule of the last sentence of subsection
(d)(5) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.
``(f) Carryover of Unused Limitation.--If for any calendar
year--
``(1) the amount allocated under subsection (d) to any
State, exceeds
``(2) the amount of bonds issued during such year which are
designated under subsection (a) pursuant to such allocation,
the limitation amount under such subsection for such State
for the following calendar year shall be increased by the
amount of such excess. A similar rule shall apply to the
amounts allocated under subsection (e). The subsection shall
not apply if such following calendar year is after 2003.
``(g) Set-Aside Allocated Among Indian Tribes.--
``(1) In general.--The 1.5 percent set-aside applicable
under subsection (c)(1) for any calendar year shall be
allocated under paragraph (2) among Indian tribes for the
construction, rehabilitation, or repair of tribal schools. No
allocation may be made under the preceding sentence unless
the Indian tribe has an approved application.
``(2) Allocation formula.--The amount to be allocated under
paragraph (1) for any calendar year shall be allocated among
Indian tribes on a competitive basis by the Secretary of
Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Education--
``(A) through a negotiated rulemaking procedure with the
tribes in the same manner as the procedure described in
section 106(b)(2) of the Native American Housing Assistance
and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4116(b)(2)),
and
``(B) based on criteria described in paragraphs (1), (3),
(4), (5), and (6) of section 12005(a) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8505(a)).
``(3) Approved application.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
the term `approved application' means an application
submitted by an Indian tribe which is approved by the
Secretary of Education and which includes--
``(A) the basis upon which the applicable tribal school
meets the criteria described in paragraph (2)(B), and
``(B) an assurance by the Indian tribe that such tribal
school will not receive funds pursuant to allocations
described in subsection (d) or (e).
``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' has the
meaning given such term by section 45A(c)(6).
``(B) Tribal school.--The term `tribal school' means a
school that is operated by an Indian tribe for the education
of Indian children with financial assistance under grant
under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C.
2501 et seq.) or a contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs
under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act (25 U.S.C. 450f et seq.).''
(b) Reporting.--Subsection (d) of section 6049 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to returns regarding
payments of interest) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(8) Reporting of Credit on Qualified Public School
Modernization Bonds.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term
`interest' includes amounts includible in gross income under
section 1397E(f) and such amounts shall be treated as paid on
the credit allowance date (as defined in section
1397E(d)(2)).
``(B) Reporting to corporations, etc.--Except as otherwise
provided in regulations, in the case of any interest
described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, subsection
(b)(4) of this section shall be applied without regard to
subparagraphs (A), (H), (I), (J), (K), and (L)(i).
``(C) Regulatory authority.--The Secretary may prescribe
such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations which
require more frequent or more detailed reporting.''
(c) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) The table of parts for subchapter U of chapter 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking the item
relating to part IV and inserting the following:

``Part IV. Incentives for qualified public school modernization
bonds.''
(2) Part V of subchapter U of chapter 1 of such Code is
amended by redesignating both section 1397F and the item
relating thereto in the table of sections for such part as
section 1397H.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to obligations
issued after December 31, 1998.
(2) Repeal of restriction on zone academy bond holders.--
The repeal of the limitation of section 1397E of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect on the day before the date
of enactment of this Act) to eligible taxpayers (as defined
in subsection (d)(6) of such section) shall apply to
obligations issued after December 31, 1997.

SEC. 4. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FUNDING FOR BIA SCHOOL
FACILITIES.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) the Bureau of Indian Affairs operates 1 of only 2
federally-run school systems; and
(2) there is a clear Federal responsibility to ensure that
the more than 50,000 students attending these schools have
decent, safe schools.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) sufficient funds should be provided in fiscal year 2000
to begin construction of 3 new Bureau of Indian Affairs
school facilities and to increase funds available for the
improvement and repair of existing facilities; and

[[Page 996]]

(2) in addition, Congress should consider enacting
legislation to establish other funding mechanisms that would
leverage Federal investments on behalf of Bureau of Indian
Affairs schools in order to address the serious construction
backlog which exists at tribal schools.
______

By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Robb, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Daschle, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Torricelli,
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Inouye, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr.
Johnson):
S. 223. A bill to help communities moderize public school facilities,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

PUBLIC SCHOOL MODERNIZAATION ACT OF 1999

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to join with Senator Lautenberg to
introduce the Public School Modernization Act of 1999.
I was gratified that so many Members of this body recognized last
year that the need for school construction and modernization is vital.
The legislation that Senator Lautenberg and I are introducing is
designed to help States build new schools and repair and modernize
outdated ones, so that our children will have a better, more modern and
safe environment in which to learn.
A few weeks ago, the Thomas Jefferson Center for Educational Design
at the University of Virginia issued a devastating report detailing the
alarming condition of many of Virginia's schools. Over 3,000 trailers
are being used to hold classes. Two out of 3 school districts have held
classes in auditoriums, cafeterias, storage areas, and book closets,
and 53 percent of Virginia school districts had to increase the size of
their classes in order to accommodate their divisions' growing student
populations.
We know that smaller class sizes do, in fact, have a dramatic impact
on student learning, especially in the first 3 years. So in order to
give our children the learning environment they deserve, we have to fix
the leaky roofs, build the additional classrooms, and build more
schools to accommodate our growing student population, and to reduce
class size.
This is a constructive role for the Federal Government to play. In
fact, it was a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who proposed
a massive $1.1 billion school construction initiative in 1955.
Our States need our help, Mr. President. This legislation does not
usurp local control of education or hinder States and localities from
developing their own solutions to the problem of improving the academic
performance of our children. Rather, this bill is intended to
complement the efforts of the many State legislatures that are now
wrestling with the questions of how to repair and equip old schools and
how to build new schools.
Mr. President, no child should be forced to go to a school without
heat, or have to wade regularly through standing water to get to class,
or be expected to learn in a trailer with poor ventilation. Our
children and their parents need our help.
I thank my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, for his work on this issue,
and I look forward to working with him on this effort to bring it to a
successful conclusion. I also thank Senators Daschle, Kennedy, Kerry,
Torricelli, Edwards, and Bingaman for joining us today.
I urge all of our colleagues in the State to recognize the urgent
school construction needs of all of our States and to work with us in
passing this particular legislation.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 224. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to correct
the treatment of tax-exempt financing of professional sports
facilities; to the Committee on Finance.

the stop tax-exempt arena debt issuance act

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a tax bill
that would correct a serious misallocation of our limited resources
under present law: a tax subsidy that inures largely to the benefit of
wealthy sports franchise owners and their players. This legislation--
the Stop Tax-exempt Arena Debt Issuance Act, or STADIA for short--was
introduced by the Senator from New York for the first time in 1996.
Since that time, the bill has attracted the close scrutiny of bond
counsel and their clients, and has received much attention in the
press, almost all of which has been favorable.
Mr. Keith Olbermann, at the time an anchor of ESPN's Sportscenter
program, even declared that the introduction of the bill was
``paramount among all other sports stories'' when introduced. Passage
of the bill, Mr. Olbermann said, would be ``the vaccine that . . .
could conceivably at least lead towards the cure, if not cure
immediately, almost all the ills of sports.''
Mr. Olbermann may just be right about the importance of this bill,
both to sports fans and to taxpayers. The bill closes a big loophole, a
loophole that ultimately injures state and local governments and other
issuers of tax-exempt bonds, that provides an unintended federal
subsidy that contravenes Congressional intent, that underwrites bidding
wars among cities battling for professional sports franchises, and that
enriches persons who need no federal assistance whatsoever.
A decade ago, I was much involved in the drafting of the Tax Reform
Act of 1986. A major objective of that legislation was to simplify the
Tax Code by eliminating a large number of loopholes that had come to be
viewed as unfair because they primarily benefited small groups of
taxpayers. One of the loopholes we sought to close in 1986 was one that
permitted builders of professional sports facilities to use tax-exempt
bonds. Mind, we had nothing against new stadium construction, but we
made the judgment that scarce Federal resources could surely be used in
ways that would better serve the public good. The increasing
proliferation of tax-exempt bonds had driven up interest costs for
financing roads, schools, libraries, and other governmental purposes,
led to mounting revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury, caused an
inefficient allocation of capital, and allowed wealthy taxpayers to
shield a growing amount of their investment income from income tax by
purchasing tax-exempt bonds. Thus, we expressly forbade use of
``private activity'' bonds for sports facilities, intending to
eliminate tax-exempt financing of these facilities altogether.
Yet team owners, with help from clever tax counsel, soon recognized
that the change could work to their advantage. As columnist Neal R.
Pierce wrote, team owners ``were not checkmated for long. They were
soon exhibiting the gall to ask mayors to finance their stadiums with
[governmental] purpose bonds.'' Congress did not anticipate this. After
all, by law, governmental bonds used to build stadiums would be tax-
exempt only if no more than 10 percent of the debt service is derived
from stadium revenue sources. In other words, non-stadium governmental
revenues (i.e., tax revenues, lottery proceeds, and the like) must be
used to repay the bulk of the debt, freeing team owners to pocket
stadium revenues. Who would have thought that local officials, in order
to attract or retain a team, would capitulate to team owners--granting
concessionary stadium leases and committing limited government revenues
to repay stadium debt, thereby hindering their own ability to provide
schools, roads and other public investments?
The result has been a stadium construction boom unlike anything we
have ever seen, and there is no end in sight.
What is driving the demand for new stadiums? Mainly, team owners'
bottom lines and rising player salaries. Although our existing stadiums
are generally quite serviceable, team owners can generate greater
income, increase their franchise values dramatically, and compete for
high-priced free agents with new tax-subsidized, single-purpose
stadiums equipped with luxury skyboxes, club seats and the like. Thus,
using their monopoly power, owners threaten to move, forcing bidding
wars among cities. End result: new, tax-subsidized stadiums with fancy
amenities and sweetheart lease deals.
To cite a case in point, Mr. Art Modell recently moved the Cleveland

[[Page 997]]

Browns professional football team from Cleveland to Baltimore to become
the Ravens. Prior to relocating, Mr. Modell had said, ``I am not about
to rape the City [of Cleveland] as others in my league have done. You
will never hear me say `if I don't get this I'm moving.' You can go to
press on that one. I couldn't live with myself if I did that.''
Obviously, Mr. Modell changed his mind. And why? An extraordinary
stadium deal with the State of Maryland.
The State of Maryland (and the local sports authority) provided the
land on which the stadium is located, issued $87 million in tax-exempt
bonds (yielding interest savings of approximately $60 million over a
30-year period as compared to taxable bonds), and contributed $30
million in cash and $64 million in state lottery revenues towards
construction of the stadium. Mr. Modell agreed to contribute $24
million toward the project and, in return, receives rent-free use of
the stadium (the franchise pays only for the operating and maintenance
costs), $65 million in sales of rights to purchase season tickets (so-
called ``personal seat licenses''), all revenues from selling the right
to name the stadium, luxury suites, premium seats, in-part advertising,
and concessions, and 50 percent of all revenues from stadium events
other than Ravens' games (with the right to control the booking of
those events).
Financial World reported that the value of the Baltimore Ravens'
franchise increased from $165 million in 1992 (i.e., before the move
from Cleveland) to an estimated $250 million after its first season in
the new stadium. It's little wonder that Mr. Modell stated: ``The pride
and presence of a professional football team is far more important than
30 libraries, and I say that with all due respect to the learning
process.''
Meanwhile, the city of Cleveland has been building a new, $225
million stadium to house an expansion football team. When Mr. Modell
decided to move his team to Baltimore, the NFL agreed to grant
Cleveland a new football team with the same name: the Cleveland Browns.
Most cities are not as fortunate when a team leaves.
We are even reaching a point at which stadiums are being abandoned
before they have been used for 10 to 15 years. An article in Barron's
reported that a perception of ``economic obsolescence'' on the part of
some owners has doomed even recently-built venues:

The eight-year-old Miami Arena is facing a future without
its two major tenants, the Florida Panthers hockey team and
the Miami Heat basketball franchise, because of inadequate
seating capacity and a paucity of luxury suites. The Panthers
have already cut a deal to move to a new facility that nearby
Broward County is building for them at a cost of around $200
million. Plans call for Dade County to build a new $210
million arena before the end of the decade, despite the fact
that the move will leave local taxpayers stuck with servicing
the debt on two Miami arenas rather than just one.

How do taxpayers benefit from all this? They don't. Ticket prices go
way up--and stay up--after a new stadium opens. So while fans are asked
to foot the bills through tax subsidies, many no longer can afford the
price of admission. A study by Newsday found that ticket prices rose by
32 percent in five new baseball stadiums, as compared to a major league
average of 8 percent. Not to mention the refreshments and other
concessions, which also cost more in the new venues.
According to Barron's, the projects:

. . . cater largely to well-heeled fans, meaning the folks
who can afford to pay for seats in glassed-in luxury boxes.
While the suit-and-cell-phone crowd get all the best seats,
the average taxpayer is cosigned to ``cheap seats'' in
nosebleed land or, more often, to following his favorite team
on television.

Nor do these new stadiums provide much, if any, economic benefit to
their local communities. Professors Roger G. Noll and Andrew Zimbalist
recently published Sports, Jobs & Taxes with the Brookings Institution
Press, in which they presented studies of the economic impact of
professional sports facilities. The conclusion:

[I]n every case, the authors find that the local economic
impact of sports teams and facilities is far smaller than
proponents allege; in some cases it is negative. These
findings are valid regardless of whether the benefits are
measured for the local neighborhood, for the city, or for the
entire metropolitan area in which a facility is located.

Or, as concluded by Ronald D. Utt in his Heritage Foundation
``Backgrounder'' Cities in Denial: The False Promise of Subsidized
Tourist and Entertainment Complexes:

As the record from around the country indicates, the
economic boost from public investment in entertainment
complexes is exceptionally modest at best, and
counterproductive at worst. It diverts scarce resources and
public attention from the less glamorous activities that make
more meaningful contributions to the public's well-being.

And what of the economic consequences to the communities abandoned by
teams that relocate?
Any job growth that does result is extremely expensive. The
Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported that the new $177 million
football stadium for the Baltimore Ravens is expected to cost $127,000
per job created. By contrast, the cost per job generated by Maryland's
economic development program is just $6,250.
Finally, Federal taxpayers receive absolutely no economic benefit for
providing this subsidy. As CRS pointed out, ``Almost all stadium
spending is spending that would have been made on other activities
within the United States, which means that benefits to the nation as a
whole are near zero.'' After all, these teams will invariably locate
somewhere in the United States, it is just a matter of where. And
should the federal taxpayers in the team's current home town be forced
to pay for the team's new stadium in a new city? The answer is
unmistakably no.
Nevertheless, it seems that every day another professional sports
team is demanding a new stadium, threatening a relocation if the demand
is not met. This is a growing phenomenon. Professors Noll and Zimbalist
wrote that:

Between 1989 and 1997, thirty-one new stadiums and arenas
were built. At least thirty-nine additional teams are seeking
new facilities, are in the process of finalizing the deal to
build one, or are waiting to move into one.

When I first introduced legislation to address this issue in 1996,
stadium bond issuance had already exceeded $1 billion per year.
Issuance reached $1.8 billion in 1997, a 30 percent increase from 1996.
The bonds issued during 1997 alone represent a federal taxpayer subsidy
of approximately $300 million over 10 years. It seems safe to predict
that stadium bond issuance continued to increase in 1998.
In closing, one note about implementation of this legislation, should
it be enacted. It might be considered unfair that some teams have new
taxpayer-subsidized sports facilities, while other teams do not, all
due to the arbitrary effective date of a change in the tax law. After
all, why should some team owners be rewarded with a stadium subsidy
while those owners who were reluctant to threaten relocation or to
exploit unwarranted tax benefits do without? Congress could certainly
provide appropriate transition rules--as it did in the 1986 Act when it
first shut down tax-exempt stadium financing--to allow these latter
teams stadium subsidies.
What is clear is that we have got to do something about the explosion
in tax-subsidized stadium construction, if not through this
legislation, then through some other similar means. Perhaps Congress
should consider some form of excise tax, or some limitation on use of
bonds to situations that do not involve a relocating team. We could
also consider requiring that stadium bonds be repaid by stadium
revenues--or at the very least we could re-examine current law, which
effectively prohibits such a use of stadium revenues. Or, we could
consider tightening the prohibition on the use of tax-exempt bonds to
finance luxury skyboxes so that it cannot be so easily circumvented.
The STADIA bill would save about $50 million a year now spent to
subsidize professional sports stadiums. The question for Congress is
should we subsidize the commercial pursuits of wealthy team owners,
encourage escalating player salaries, and underwrite bidding wars among
cities seeking or fighting to keep professional sports teams, or would
our scarce resources be

[[Page 998]]

put to better use? To my mind, this is not a difficult choice.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 224

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 ``Stop Tax-Exempt Arena Debt
Issuance Act''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING OF PROFESSIONAL
SPORTS FACILITIES.

(a) In General.--Section 141 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (defining private activity bond and qualified bond)
is amended by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f)
and by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection:
``(e) Certain Issues Used for Professional Sports
Facilities Treated as Private Activity Bonds.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this title, the term
`private activity bond' includes any bond issued as part of
an issue if the amount of the proceeds of the issue which are
to be used (directly or indirectly) to provide professional
sports facilities exceeds the lesser of--
``(A) 5 percent of such proceeds, or
``(B) $5,000,000.
``(2) Bond not treated as a qualified bond.--For purposes
of this title, any bond described in paragraph (1) shall not
be a qualified bond.
``(3) Professional sports facilities.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `professional sports
facilities' means real property or related improvements used
for professional sports exhibitions, games, or training,
regardless if the admission of the public or press is allowed
or paid.
``(B) Use for professional sports.--Any use of facilities
which generates a direct or indirect monetary benefit (other
than reimbursement for out-of pocket expenses) for a person
who uses such facilities for professional sports exhibitions,
games, or training shall be treated as a use described in
subparagraph (A).
``(4) Anti-abuse regulations.--The Secretary shall
prescribe such regulations as may be appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this subsection, including such regulations
as may be appropriate to prevent avoidance of such purposes
through related persons, use of related facilities or
multiuse complexes, or otherwise.''
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3),
and (5), the amendments made by this section shall apply to
bonds issued on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Exception for construction, binding agreements, or
approved projects.--The amendments made by this section shall
not apply to bonds--
(A) the proceeds of which are used for--
(i) the construction or rehabilitation of a facility--

(I) if such construction or rehabilitation began before
June 14, 1996, and was completed on or after such date, or
(II) if a State or political subdivision thereof has
entered into a binding contract before June 14, 1996, that
requires the incurrence of significant expenditures for such
construction or rehabilitation, and some of such expenditures
are incurred on or after such date; or

(ii) the acquisition of a facility pursuant to a binding
contract entered into by a State or political subdivision
thereof before June 14, 1996, and
(B) which are the subject of an official action taken by
relevant government officials before June 14, 1996--
(i) approving the issuance of such bonds, or
(ii) approving the submission of the approval of such
issuance to a voter referendum.
(3) Exception for final bond resolutions.--The amendments
made by this section shall not apply to bonds the proceeds of
which are used for the construction or rehabilitation of a
facility if a State or political subdivision thereof has
completed all necessary governmental approvals for the
issuance of such bonds before June 14, 1996.
(4) Significant expenditures.--For purposes of paragraph
(2)(A)(i)(II), the term ``significant expenditures'' means
expenditures equal to or exceeding 10 percent of the
reasonably anticipated cost of the construction or
rehabilitation of the facility involved.
(5) Exception for certain current refundings.--
(A) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
not apply to any bond the proceeds of which are used
exclusively to refund a qualified bond (or a bond which is a
part of a series of refundings of a qualified bond) if--
(i) the amount of the refunding bond does not exceed the
outstanding principal amount of the refunded bond,
(ii) the average maturity date of the issue of which the
refunding bond is a part is not later than the average
maturity date of the bonds to be refunded by such issue, and
(iii) the net proceeds of the refunding bond are used to
redeem the refunded bond not later than 90 days after the
date of the issuance of the refunding bond.

For purposes of clause (ii), average maturity shall be
determined in accordance with section 147(b)(2)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(B) Qualified bond.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the
term ``qualified bond'' means any tax-exempt bond to finance
a professional sports facility (as defined in section
141(e)(3) of such Code, as added by subsection (a)) issued
before the date of enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
S. 225. A bill to provide housing assistance to Native Hawaiians; to
the Committee on Indian Affairs.

THE NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SELF-DETERMINATION ACT
AMENDMENTS

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure which
passed in the Senate toward the close of the 105th session of the
Congress to amend the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act to provide Federal housing assistance to address the
serious unmet housing needs of Native Hawaiians.
Mr. President, the primary objective of this measure is to enable
Native Hawaiians who are eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands
to have access to federal housing assistance that is currently provided
to other eligible low-income American families based upon documented
need.
In 1920, with the enactment of Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, the
United States set aside approximately 200,000 acres of public land that
had been ceded to the United States in what was then the Territory of
Hawaii to establish a permanent homeland for the native people of
Hawaii, based upon findings of the Congress that Native Hawaiians were
a landless people and a ``dying'' people. The Secretary of the
Interior, Franklin Lane, likened the relationship between the United
States and Native Hawaiians to the guardian-ward relationship that then
existed between the United States and American Indians.
As a condition of its admission into the Union of States in 1959, the
United States transferred title to the 200,000 acres of land to the
State of Hawaii with the requirement that the lands be held ``in public
trust'' for ``the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians, as
defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920''. The Hawaii
Admissions Act also required that the Hawaii State Constitution provide
for the assumption by the new State of a trust responsibility for the
lands. The lands are now administered by a State agency, the Department
of Hawaiian Home Lands.
However, similar to the responsibility with which the Secretary of
the Interior is charged in the administration of Indian lands, the
United States retained and continues to retain the exclusive authority
to enforce the trust and to institute legal action against the State of
Hawaii for any breach of the trust, as well as the exclusive right to
consent to any actions affecting the lands which comprise the corpus of
the trust and any amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act
enacted by the legislature of the State of Hawaii affecting the rights
of the beneficiaries under the Act.
Within the last several years, three recent studies have documented
the housing conditions that confront Native Hawaiians who either reside
on the Hawaiian home lands or who are eligible to reside on the home
lands.
In 1992, the National Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native,
and Native Hawaiian Housing issued its final report to the Congress,
``Building the Future: A Blueprint for Change''. The Commission's Study
compared housing data for Native Hawaiians with housing information for
other citizens in the State of Hawaii. The Commission found that Native
Hawaiians, like American Indians and Alaska Natives, lacked access to
conventional financing because of the trust status of the Hawaiian home
lands, and that Native Hawaiians had the worst housing conditions in
the State of Hawaii and

[[Page 999]]

the highest percentage of homelessness, representing over 30 percent of
the State's homeless population.
The Commission concluded that the unique circumstances of Native
Hawaiians require the enactment of new legislation to alleviate and
address the severe housing needs of Native Hawaiians, and recommended
that the Congress extend to Native Hawaiians the same federal housing
assistance programs that are provided to American Indians and Alaska
Natives under the Low-Income Rental, Mutual Help, Loan Guarantee
Program and Community Development Block Grant programs. Subsequently,
the Community Development Block Grant program authority was amended to
address the housing needs of Native Hawaiians.
In 1995, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
issued a report entitled, ``Housing Problems and Needs of Native
Hawaiians''. The HUD report was particularly helpful because it
compared the data on Native Hawaiian housing conditions with housing
conditions nationally and with the housing conditions of American
Indians and Alaska Natives.
The most alarming finding of the HUD report was that Native Hawaiians
experience the highest percentage of housing problems in the nation--49
percent--higher than even that of American Indians and Alaska Natives
residing on reservations (44 percent) and substantially higher than
that of all U.S. households (27 percent). Additionally, the HUD study
found that the percentage of overcrowding in the Native Hawaiian
population is 36 percent as compared to 3 percent for all other
households in the United States.
Applying the HUD guidelines, 70.8 percent of Native Hawaiians who
either reside or who are eligible to reside on the Hawaiian home lands
have incomes which fall below the median family income in the United
States, and 50 percent of those Native Hawaiians have incomes below 30
percent of the median family income in the United States.
Also in 1995, the Hawaii State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
published a Beneficiary Needs Study as a result of research conducted
by an independent research group. This study found that among the
Native Hawaiian population, the needs of Native Hawaiians eligible to
reside on the Hawaiian home lands are the most severe--with 95 percent
of home lands applicants (16,000) in need of housing, and with one-half
of those applicant households facing overcrowding and one-third paying
more than 30 percent of their income for shelter.
Eligibility for an assignment of Hawaiian home lands for purposes of
housing, agricultural development or pasture land is a function of
federal law--the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. There are
approximately 60,000 Native Hawaiians who would be eligible to reside
on the home lands, but applying for an assignment of a parcel of home
lands is voluntary. Because of the lack of resources to develop
infrastructure (roads, access to water and sewer and electricity) on
the home lands as required by State and county laws before housing can
be constructed, hundreds of Native Hawaiians on the waiting list have
died before receiving an assignment of home lands.
Once an eligible Native Hawaiian reaches the top of the waiting list,
he or she must be able to qualify for a private home loan mortgage,
because the limited Federal and State funds available to the Department
of Hawaiian Home Lands have been used to develop infrastructure rather
than the construction of housing. An assignment of home lands property
is in the form of a 99-year lease. Unless the heirs of the eligible
Native Hawaiian qualify in their own right for an assignment of home
lands under the provisions of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, upon
the death of the eligible Native Hawaiian, the heirs must move off the
land.
Currently, Native Hawaiians who are eligible to reside on the home
lands but who do not qualify for private mortgage loans do not have
access to federal housing assistance programs that provide assistance
to low-income families. This is due to the fact that for many years,
the federal government took the legal position that because the
government that represented the Native Hawaiian people had been
overthrown in 1893 and thus there was no government-to-government
relationship with the United States, extending federal housing program
assistance to lands set aside exclusively for Native Hawaiians would be
discriminating on the basis of race or ethnicity.
The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act not only provides authority for the
assignment of home lands property to Native Hawaiians. The Act also
authorizes general leases to non-Hawaiians. At the time the Act was
passed by the Congress, it was anticipated that revenues derived from
general leases would be sufficient to develop the necessary
infrastructure and housing on the home lands. However, general lease
revenue has not proven sufficient to address infrastructure and housing
needs.
In recent years, as a result of litigation involving third-party
leases of Hawaiian home lands, the United States revisited its legal
position and found that the authority contained in the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act for general leases to non-Hawaiians meant that the land
was not set aside exclusively for Native Hawaiians. The non-exclusive
nature of the land set aside was thus found not to violate
Constitutional prohibitions on racial discrimination.
The change in the United States' legal position may be further
informed by the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Rice v.
Cayetano, No. 97-16095, 146 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 1998) in which the
Appeals Court compared the special treatment of Native Hawaiians to the
special treatment of Indians that the Supreme Court approved in Morton
v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) and cited its reference to Mancari in
Alaska Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors v. Pierce, 694 F.2d 1162
(9th Cir. 1981), in which the Circuit Court expressed its finding that
preferential treatment that is grounded in the government's unique
obligation toward Indians is a political rather than a racial
classification, even though racial criteria may be used in defining
eligibility.
However, the result of the United States' earlier legal position was
that Native Hawaiians who were eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home
Lands and would have otherwise been eligible by virtue of their low-
income status to apply for Federal housing assistance were foreclosed
from participating in Federal housing assistance programs that were
available to all other eligible families in the United States.
Mr. President, if enacted into law, the measure which I introduce
today will finally provide some relief and support to those who are in
the greatest need for a simple roof over their heads and a place to
raise their families.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this measure
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 225

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 ``Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Amendments of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the United States has undertaken a responsibility to
promote the general welfare of the United States by--
(A) employing its resources to remedy the unsafe and
unsanitary housing conditions and the acute shortage of
decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for families of lower
income; and
(B) developing effective partnerships with governmental and
private entities to accomplish the objectives referred to in
subparagraph (A);
(2) pursuant to the provisions of the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et seq.), the United
States set aside 200,000 acres of land in the Federal
territory that later became the State of Hawaii in order to
establish a homeland for the native people of Hawaii--Native
Hawaiians;
(3) despite the intent of Congress in 1920 to address the
housing needs of Native Hawaiians through the enactment of
the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et

[[Page 1000]]

seq.), some agencies of the Federal Government have taken the
legal position that subsequently enacted Federal housing laws
designed to address the housing needs of all eligible
families in the United States could not be extended to
address the needs for housing and infrastructure development
on Hawaiian home lands (as that term is defined in section
801 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996, as added by section 3 of this Act)
with the result that otherwise eligible Native Hawaiians
residing on the Hawaiian home lands have been foreclosed from
participating in Federal housing assistance programs
available to all other eligible families in the United
States;
(4) although Federal housing assistance programs have been
administered on a racially neutral basis in the State of
Hawaii, Native Hawaiians continue to have the greatest unmet
need for housing and the highest rates of overcrowding in the
United States;
(5) among the Native American population of the United
States, Native Hawaiians experience the highest percentage of
housing problems in the United States, as the percentage--
(A) of housing problems in the Native Hawaiian population
is 49 percent, as compared to--
(i) 44 percent for American Indian and Alaska Native
households in Indian country; and
(ii) 27 percent for all other households in the United
States; and
(B) overcrowding in the Native Hawaiian population is 36
percent as compared to 3 percent for all other households in
the United States;
(6) among the Native Hawaiian population, the needs of
Native Hawaiians, as that term is defined in section 801 of
the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
Act of 1996, as added by section 3 of this Act, eligible to
reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands are the most severe, as--
(A) the percentage of overcrowding in Native Hawaiian
households on the Hawaiian Home Lands is 36 percent; and
(B) approximately 13,000 Native Hawaiians, which constitute
95 percent of the Native Hawaiians who are eligible to reside
on the Hawaiian Home Lands, are in need of housing;
(7) applying the Department of Housing and Urban
Development guidelines--
(A) 70.8 percent of Native Hawaiians who either reside or
who are eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands have
incomes that fall below the median family income; and
(B) 50 percent of Native Hawaiians who either reside or who
are eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands have
incomes below 30 percent of the median family income; and
(8) \1/3\ of those Native Hawaiians who are eligible to
reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands pay more than 30 percent of
their income for shelter, and \1/2\ of those Native Hawaiians
face overcrowding;
(9) the extraordinarily severe housing needs of Native
Hawaiians demonstrate that Native Hawaiians who either reside
on, or are eligible to reside on, Hawaiian Home Lands have
been denied equal access to Federal low-income housing
assistance programs available to other qualified residents of
the United States, and that a more effective means of
addressing their housing needs must be authorized;
(10) consistent with the recommendations of the National
Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native
Hawaiian Housing, and in order to address the continuing
prevalence of extraordinarily severe housing needs among
Native Hawaiians who either reside or are eligible to reside
on the Hawaiian Home Lands, Congress finds it necessary to
extend the Federal low-income housing assistance available to
American Indians and Alaska Natives under the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25
U.S.C. 4101 et seq.) to those Native Hawaiians;
(11) under the treatymaking power of the United States,
Congress had the authority to confirm a treaty between the
United States and the government that represented the
Hawaiian people under clause 3 of section 8 of article I of
the Constitution, the authority of Congress to address
matters affecting the indigenous peoples of the United States
includes the authority to address matters affecting Native
Hawaiians;
(12) through treaties, Federal statutes, and rulings of the
Federal courts, the United States has recognized and
reaffirmed that--
(A) the political status of Native Hawaiians is comparable
to that of American Indians and Alaska Natives; and
(B) the aboriginal, indigenous people of the United States
have--
(i) a continuing right to autonomy in their internal
affairs; and
(ii) an ongoing right of self-determination and self-
governance that has never been extinguished;
(13) the political relationship between the United States
and the Native Hawaiian people has been recognized and
reaffirmed by the United States as evidenced by the inclusion
of Native Hawaiians in--
(A) the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
2291 et seq.);
(B) the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C.
1996 et seq.);
(C) the National Museum of the American Indian Act (20
U.S.C. 80q et seq.);
(D) the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
(E) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470
et seq.);
(F) the Native American Languages Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
3434);
(G) the American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian
Culture and Arts Development Act (20 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.);
(H) the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.); and
(I) the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et
seq.); and
(14) in the area of housing, the United States has
recognized and reaffirmed the political relationship with the
Native Hawaiian people through--
(A) the enactment of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act,
1920 (42 Stat. 108 et seq.), which set aside approximately
200,000 acres of public lands that became known as Hawaiian
Home Lands in the Territory of Hawaii that had been ceded to
the United States for homesteading by Native Hawaiians in
order to rehabilitate a landless and dying people;
(B) the enactment of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide
for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union'',
approved March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 4)--
(i) by ceding to the State of Hawaii title to the public
lands formerly held by the United States, and mandating that
those lands be held in public trust, for the betterment of
the conditions of Native Hawaiians, as that term is defined
in section 801(15) of the Native American Housing Assistance
and Self-Determination Act of 1996, as added by section 3 of
this Act; and
(ii) by transferring what the United States considered to
be a trust responsibility for the administration of Hawaiian
Home Lands to the State of Hawaii, but retaining the
authority to enforce the trust, including the exclusive right
of the United States to consent to any actions affecting the
lands which comprise the corpus of the trust and any
amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42
Stat. 108 et seq.), enacted by the legislature of the State
of Hawaii affecting the rights of beneficiaries under the
Act;
(C) the authorization of mortgage loans insured by the
Federal Housing Administration for the purchase,
construction, or refinancing of homes on Hawaiian Home Lands
under the Act of June 27, 1934 (commonly referred to as the
``National Housing Act'' (42 Stat. 1246 et seq., chapter 847;
12 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.));
(D) authorizing Native Hawaiian representation on the
National Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native, and
Native Hawaiian Housing under Public Law 101-235;
(E) the inclusion of Native Hawaiians in the definition
under section 3764 of title 38, United States Code,
applicable to subchapter V of chapter 37- of title 38, United
States Code (relating to a housing loan program for Native
American veterans); and
(F) the enactment of the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act
(109 Stat. 357; 48 U.S.C. 491, note prec.) which establishes
a process for the conveyance of Federal lands to the
Department of Hawaiian Homes Lands that are equivalent in
value to lands acquired by the United States from the
Hawaiian Home Lands inventory.

SEC. 3. HOUSING ASSISTANCE.

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``TITLE VIII--HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS

``SEC. 801. DEFINITIONS.

``In this title:
``(1) Department of hawaiian home lands; department.--The
term `Department of Hawaiian Home Lands' or `Department'
means the agency or department of the government of the State
of Hawaii that is responsible for the administration of the
Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et seq.).
``(2) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of
the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
``(3) Elderly families; near-elderly families.--
``(A) In general.--The term `elderly family' or `near-
elderly family' means a family whose head (or his or her
spouse), or whose sole member, is--
``(i) for an elderly family, an elderly person; or
``(ii) for a near-elderly family, a near-elderly person.
``(B) Certain families included.--The term `elderly family'
or `near-elderly family' includes--
``(i) 2 or more elderly persons or near-elderly persons, as
the case may be, living together; and
``(ii) 1 or more persons described in clause (i) living
with 1 or more persons determined under the housing plan to
be essential to their care or well-being.
``(4) Hawaiian home lands.--The term `Hawaiian Home Lands'
means lands that--
``(A) have the status as Hawaiian home lands under section
204 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (42 Stat. 110); or
``(B) are acquired pursuant to that Act.
``(5) Housing area.--The term `housing area' means an area
of Hawaiian Home

[[Page 1001]]

Lands with respect to which the Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands is authorized to provide assistance for affordable
housing under this Act.
``(6) Housing entity.--The term `housing entity' means the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
``(7) Housing plan.--The term `housing plan' means a plan
developed by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
``(8) Median income.--The term `median income' means, with
respect to an area that is a Hawaiian housing area, the
greater of--
``(A) the median income for the Hawaiian housing area,
which shall be determined by the Secretary; or
``(B) the median income for the State of Hawaii.
``(9) Native hawaiian.--The term `Native Hawaiian' has the
meaning given the term `Native Hawaiian' in section 201 of
the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et
seq.).

``SEC. 802. BLOCK GRANTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES.

``(a) Grant Authority.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary
shall (to the extent amounts are made available to carry out
this title) make a grant under this title to the Department
of Hawaiian Home Lands to carry out affordable housing
activities for Native Hawaiian families on or near Hawaiian
Home Lands.
``(b) Plan Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make a grant under
this title to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands for a
fiscal year only if--
``(A) the Director has submitted to the Secretary a housing
plan for that fiscal year; and
``(B) the Secretary has determined under section 804 that
the housing plan complies with the requirements of section
803.
``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the applicability of
the requirements under paragraph (1), in part, if the
Secretary finds that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
has not complied or cannot comply with those requirements due
to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands.
``(c) Use of Affordable Housing Activities Under Plan.--
Except as provided in subsection (e), amounts provided under
a grant under this section may be used only for affordable
housing activities under this title that are consistent with
a housing plan approved under section 804.
``(d) Administrative Expenses.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, by regulation,
authorize the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to use a
percentage of any grant amounts received under this title for
any reasonable administrative and planning expenses of the
Department relating to carrying out this title and activities
assisted with those amounts.
``(2) Administrative and planning expenses.--The
administrative and planning expenses referred to in paragraph
(1) include--
``(A) costs for salaries of individuals engaged in
administering and managing affordable housing activities
assisted with grant amounts provided under this title; and
``(B) expenses incurred in preparing a housing plan under
section 803.
``(e) Public-Private Partnerships.--The Director shall make
all reasonable efforts, consistent with the purposes of this
title, to maximize participation by the private sector,
including nonprofit organizations and for-profit entities, in
implementing a housing plan that has been approved by the
Secretary under section 803.
``(f) Applicability of Other Provisions.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall be guided by the
relevant program requirements of titles I, II, and IV in the
implementation of housing assistance programs for Native
Hawaiians under this title.
``(2) Exception.--The Secretary may make exceptions to, or
modifications of, program requirements for Native American
housing assistance set forth in titles I, II, and IV as
necessary and appropriate to meet the unique situation and
housing needs of Native Hawaiians.

``SEC. 803. HOUSING PLAN.

``(a) Plan Submission.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) require the Director to submit a housing plan under
this section for each fiscal year; and
``(2) provide for the review of each plan submitted under
paragraph (1).
``(b) 5-Year Plan.--Each housing plan under this section
shall--
``(1) be in a form prescribed by the Secretary; and
``(2) contain, with respect to the 5-year period beginning
with the fiscal year for which the plan is submitted, the
following information:
``(A) Mission statement.--A general statement of the
mission of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to serve the
needs of the low-income families to be served by the
Department.
``(B) Goal and objectives.--A statement of the goals and
objectives of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to enable
the Department to serve the needs identified in subparagraph
(A) during the period.
``(C) Activities plans.--An overview of the activities
planned during the period including an analysis of the manner
in which the activities will enable the Department to meet
its mission, goals, and objectives.
``(c) 1-Year Plan.--A housing plan under this section
shall--
``(1) be in a form prescribed by the Secretary; and
``(2) contain the following information relating to the
fiscal year for which the assistance under this title is to
be made available:
``(A) Goals and objectives.--A statement of the goals and
objectives to be accomplished during the period covered by
the plan.
``(B) Statement of needs.--A statement of the housing needs
of the low-income families served by the Department and the
means by which those needs will be addressed during the
period covered by the plan, including--
``(i) a description of the estimated housing needs and the
need for assistance for the low-income families to be served
by the Department, including a description of the manner in
which the geographical distribution of assistance is
consistent with--

``(I) the geographical needs of those families; and
``(II) needs for various categories of housing assistance;
and

``(ii) a description of the estimated housing needs for all
families to be served by the Department.
``(C) Financial resources.--An operating budget for the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, in a form prescribed by
the Secretary, that includes--
``(i) an identification and a description of the financial
resources reasonably available to the Department to carry out
the purposes of this title, including an explanation of the
manner in which amounts made available will be used to
leverage additional resources; and
``(ii) the uses to which the resources described in clause
(i) will be committed, including--

``(I) eligible and required affordable housing activities;
and
``(II) administrative expenses.

``(D) Affordable housing resources.--A statement of the
affordable housing resources currently available at the time
of the submittal of the plan and to be made available during
the period covered by the plan, including--
``(i) a description of the significant characteristics of
the housing market in the State of Hawaii, including the
availability of housing from other public sources, private
market housing; and
``(ii) the manner in which the characteristics referred to
in clause (i) influence the decision of the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands to use grant amounts to be provided under
this title for--

``(I) rental assistance;
``(II) the production of new units;
``(III) the acquisition of existing units; or
``(IV) the rehabilitation of units;

``(iii) a description of the structure, coordination, and
means of cooperation between the Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands and any other governmental entities in the development,
submission, or implementation of housing plans, including a
description of--

``(I) the involvement of private, public, and nonprofit
organizations and institutions;
``(II) the use of loan guarantees under section 184A of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992; and
``(III) other housing assistance provided by the United
States, including loans, grants, and mortgage insurance;

``(iv) a description of the manner in which the plan will
address the needs identified pursuant to subparagraph (C);
``(v) a description of--

``(I) any existing or anticipated homeownership programs
and rental programs to be carried out during the period
covered by the plan; and
``(II) the requirements and assistance available under the
programs referred to in subclause (I);

``(vi) a description of--

``(I) any existing or anticipated housing rehabilitation
programs necessary to ensure the long-term viability of the
housing to be carried out during the period covered by the
plan; and
``(II) the requirements and assistance available under the
programs referred to in subclause (I);

``(vii) a description of--

``(I) all other existing or anticipated housing assistance
provided by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands during the
period covered by the plan, including--

``(aa) transitional housing;
``(bb) homeless housing;
``(cc) college housing; and
``(dd) supportive services housing; and

``(II) the requirements and assistance available under such
programs;

``(viii)(I) a description of any housing to be demolished
or disposed of;
``(II) a timetable for that demolition or disposition; and
``(III) any other information required by the Secretary
with respect to that demolition or disposition;
``(ix) a description of the manner in which the Department
of Hawaiian Home Lands will coordinate with welfare agencies
in the State of Hawaii to ensure that residents of

[[Page 1002]]

the affordable housing will be provided with access to
resources to assist in obtaining employment and achieving
self-sufficiency;
``(x) a description of the requirements established by the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to--

``(I) promote the safety of residents of the affordable
housing;
``(II) facilitate the undertaking of crime prevention
measures;
``(III) allow resident input and involvement, including the
establishment of resident organizations; and
``(IV) allow for the coordination of crime prevention
activities between the Department and local law enforcement
officials; and

``(xi) a description of the entities that will carry out
the activities under the plan, including the organizational
capacity and key personnel of the entities.
``(E) Certification of compliance.--Evidence of compliance
that shall include, as appropriate--
``(i) a certification that the Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands will comply with--

``(I) title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000d et seq.) or with title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) in carrying out this title, to
the extent that such title is applicable; and
``(II) other applicable Federal statutes;

``(ii) a certification that the Department will require
adequate insurance coverage for housing units that are owned
and operated or assisted with grant amounts provided under
this title, in compliance with such requirements as may be
established by the Secretary;
``(iii) a certification that policies are in effect and are
available for review by the Secretary and the public
governing the eligibility, admission, and occupancy of
families for housing assisted with grant amounts provided
under this title;
``(iv) a certification that policies are in effect and are
available for review by the Secretary and the public
governing rents charged, including the methods by which such
rents or homebuyer payments are determined, for housing
assisted with grant amounts provided under this title; and
``(v) a certification that policies are in effect and are
available for review by the Secretary and the public
governing the management and maintenance of housing assisted
with grant amounts provided under this title.
``(d) Applicability of Civil Rights Statutes.--
``(1) In general.--To the extent that the requirements of
title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et
seq.) or of title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) apply to assistance provided under this
title, nothing in the requirements concerning discrimination
on the basis of race shall be construed to prevent the
provision of assistance under this title--
``(A) to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands on the basis
that the Department served Native Hawaiians; or
``(B) to an eligible family on the basis that the family is
a Native Hawaiian family.
``(2) Civil rights.--Program eligibility under this title
may be restricted to Native Hawaiians. Subject to the
preceding sentence, no person may be discriminated against on
the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex,
familial status, or disability.
``(e) Use of Nonprofit Organizations.--As a condition of
receiving grant amounts under this title, the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands shall, to the extent practicable, provide
for private nonprofit organizations experienced in the
planning and development of affordable housing for Native
Hawaiians to carry out affordable housing activities with
those grant amounts.

``SEC. 804. REVIEW OF PLANS.

``(a) Review and Notice.--
``(1) Review.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a review of
a housing plan submitted to the Secretary under section 803
to ensure that the plan complies with the requirements of
that section.
``(B) Limitation.--The Secretary shall have the discretion
to review a plan referred to in subparagraph (A) only to the
extent that the Secretary considers that the review is
necessary.
``(2) Notice.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after receiving a
plan under section 803, the Secretary shall notify the
Director of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands whether the
plan complies with the requirements under that section.
``(B) Effect of failure of secretary to take action.--For
purposes of this title, if the Secretary does not notify the
Director, as required under this subsection and subsection
(b), upon the expiration of the 60-day period described in
subparagraph (A)--
``(i) the plan shall be considered to have been determined
to comply with the requirements under section 803; and
``(ii) the Director shall be considered to have been
notified of compliance.
``(b) Notice of Reasons for Determination of
Noncompliance.--If the Secretary determines that a plan
submitted under section 803 does not comply with the
requirements of that section, the Secretary shall specify in
the notice under subsection (a)--
``(1) the reasons for noncompliance; and
``(2) any modifications necessary for the plan to meet the
requirements of section 803.
``(c) Review.--
``(1) In general.--After the Director of the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands submits a housing plan under section 803,
or any amendment or modification to the plan to the
Secretary, to the extent that the Secretary considers such
action to be necessary to make a determination under this
subsection, the Secretary shall review the plan (including
any amendments or modifications thereto) to determine whether
the contents of the plan--
``(A) set forth the information required by section 803 to
be contained in the housing plan;
``(B) are consistent with information and data available to
the Secretary; and
``(C) are not prohibited by or inconsistent with any
provision of this Act or any other applicable law.
``(2) Incomplete plans.--If the Secretary determines under
this subsection that any of the appropriate certifications
required under section 803(c)(2)(E) are not included in a
plan, the plan shall be considered to be incomplete.
``(d) Updates to Plan.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), after a plan
under section 803 has been submitted for a fiscal year, the
head of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands may comply with
the provisions of that section for any succeeding fiscal year
(with respect to information included for the 5-year period
under section 803(b) or for the 1-year period under section
803(c)) by submitting only such information regarding such
changes as may be necessary to update the plan previously
submitted.
``(2) Complete plans.--The Director shall submit a complete
plan under section 803 not later than 4 years after
submitting an initial plan under that section, and not less
frequently than every 4 years thereafter.
``(e) Effective Date.--This section and section 803 shall
take effect on the date provided by the Secretary pursuant to
section 807(a) to provide for timely submission and review of
the housing plan as necessary for the provision of assistance
under this title for fiscal year 2000.

``SEC. 805. TREATMENT OF PROGRAM INCOME AND LABOR STANDARDS.

``(a) Program Income.--
``(1) Authority to retain.--The Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands may retain any program income that is realized from any
grant amounts received by the Department under this title
if--
``(A) that income was realized after the initial
disbursement of the grant amounts received by the Department;
and
``(B) the Director agrees to use the program income for
affordable housing activities in accordance with the
provisions of this title.
``(2) Prohibition of reduction of grant.--The Secretary may
not reduce the grant amount for the Department of Hawaiian
Home Lands based solely on--
``(A) whether the Department retains program income under
paragraph (1); or
``(B) the amount of any such program income retained.
``(3) Exclusion of amounts.--The Secretary may, by
regulation, exclude from consideration as program income any
amounts determined to be so small that compliance with the
requirements of this subsection would create an unreasonable
administrative burden on the Department.
``(b) Labor Standards.--
``(1) In general.--Any contract or agreement for
assistance, sale, or lease pursuant to this title shall
contain--
``(A) a provision requiring that an amount not less than
the wages prevailing in the locality, as determined or
adopted (subsequent to a determination under applicable State
or local law) by the Secretary, shall be paid to all
architects, technical engineers, draftsmen, technicians
employed in the development and all maintenance, and laborers
and mechanics employed in the operation, of the affordable
housing project involved; and
``(B) a provision that an amount not less than the wages
prevailing in the locality, as predetermined by the Secretary
of Labor pursuant to the Act commonly known as the `Davis-
Bacon Act' (46 Stat. 1494, chapter 411; 40 U.S.C. 276a et
seq.) shall be paid to all laborers and mechanics employed in
the development of the affordable housing involved.
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) and provisions relating to
wages required under paragraph (1) in any contract or
agreement for assistance, sale, or lease under this title,
shall not apply to any individual who performs the services
for which the individual volunteered and who is not otherwise
employed at any time in the construction work and received no
compensation or is paid expenses, reasonable benefits, or a
nominal fee for those services.

``SEC. 806. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

``(a) In General.--
``(1) Release of funds.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may carry out the
alternative environmental protection procedures described in
subparagraph (B) in order to ensure--
``(i) that the policies of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321

[[Page 1003]]

et seq.) and other provisions of law that further the
purposes of such Act (as specified in regulations issued by
the Secretary) are most effectively implemented in connection
with the expenditure of grant amounts provided under this
title; and
``(ii) to the public undiminished protection of the
environment.
``(B) Alternative environmental protection procedure.--In
lieu of applying environmental protection procedures
otherwise applicable, the Secretary may by regulation provide
for the release of funds for specific projects to the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands if the Director of the
Department assumes all of the responsibilities for
environmental review, decisionmaking, and action under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), and such other provisions of law as the regulations of
the Secretary specify, that would apply to the Secretary were
the Secretary to undertake those projects as Federal
projects.
``(2) Regulations.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall issue regulations to
carry out this section only after consultation with the
Council on Environmental Quality.
``(B) Contents.--The regulations issued under this
paragraph shall--
``(i) provide for the monitoring of the environmental
reviews performed under this section;
``(ii) in the discretion of the Secretary, facilitate
training for the performance of such reviews; and
``(iii) provide for the suspension or termination of the
assumption of responsibilities under this section.
``(3) Effect on assumed responsibility.--The duty of the
Secretary under paragraph (2)(B) shall not be construed to
limit or reduce any responsibility assumed by the Department
of Hawaiian Home Lands for grant amounts with respect to any
specific release of funds.
``(b) Procedure.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall authorize the
release of funds subject to the procedures under this section
only if, not less than 15 days before that approval and
before any commitment of funds to such projects, the Director
of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands submits to the
Secretary a request for such release accompanied by a
certification that meets the requirements of subsection (c).
``(2) Effect of approval.--The approval of the Secretary of
a certification described in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to
satisfy the responsibilities of the Secretary under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and such other provisions of law as the regulations of
the Secretary specify to the extent that those
responsibilities relate to the releases of funds for projects
that are covered by that certification.
``(c) Certification.--A certification under the procedures
under this section shall--
``(1) be in a form acceptable to the Secretary;
``(2) be executed by the Director of the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands;
``(3) specify that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
has fully carried out its responsibilities as described under
subsection (a); and
``(4) specify that the Director--
``(A) consents to assume the status of a responsible
Federal official under the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and each provision of law
specified in regulations issued by the Secretary to the
extent that those laws apply by reason of subsection (a); and
``(B) is authorized and consents on behalf of the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the Director to accept
the jurisdiction of the Federal courts for the purpose of
enforcement of the responsibilities of the Director of the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands as such an official.

``SEC. 807. REGULATIONS.

``The Secretary shall issue final regulations necessary to
carry out this title not later than October 1, 1999.

``SEC. 808. EFFECTIVE DATE.

``Except as otherwise expressly provided in this title,
this title shall take effect on October 1, 1999.

``SEC. 809. AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES.

``(a) National Objectives and Eligible Families.--
``(1) Primary objective.--The national objectives of this
title are--
``(A) to assist and promote affordable housing activities
to develop, maintain, and operate affordable housing in safe
and healthy environments for occupancy by low-income Native
Hawaiian families;
``(B) to ensure better access to private mortgage markets
and to promote self-sufficiency of low-income Native Hawaiian
families;
``(C) to coordinate activities to provide housing for low-
income Native Hawaiian families with Federal, State and local
activities to further economic and community development;
``(D) to plan for and integrate infrastructure resources on
the Hawaiian Home Lands with housing development; and
``(E) to--
``(i) promote the development of private capital markets;
and
``(ii) allow the markets referred to in clause (i) to
operate and grow, thereby benefiting Native Hawaiian
communities.
``(2) Eligible families.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided under subparagraph
(B), assistance for eligible housing activities under this
title shall be limited to low-income Native Hawaiian
families.
``(B) Exception to low-income requirement.--
``(i) In general.--The Director may provide assistance for
homeownership activities under--

``(I) section 810(b);
``(II) model activities under section 810(f); or
``(III) loan guarantee activities under section 184A of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to Native
Hawaiian families who are not low-income families, to the
extent that the Secretary approves the activities under that
section to address a need for housing for those families that
cannot be reasonably met without that assistance.

``(ii) Limitations.--The Secretary shall establish
limitations on the amount of assistance that may be provided
under this title for activities for families that are not
low-income families.
``(C) Other families.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the
Director may provide housing or housing assistance provided
through affordable housing activities assisted with grant
amounts under this title to a family that is not composed of
Native Hawaiians if--
``(i) the Department determines that the presence of the
family in the housing involved is essential to the well-being
of Native Hawaiian families; and
``(ii) the need for housing for the family cannot be
reasonably met without the assistance.
``(D) Preference.--
``(i) In general.--A housing plan submitted under section
803 may authorize a preference, for housing or housing
assistance provided through affordable housing activities
assisted with grant amounts provided under this title to be
provided, to the extent practicable, to families that are
eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands.
``(ii) Application.--In any case in which a housing plan
provides for preference described in clause (i), the Director
shall ensure that housing activities that are assisted with
grant amounts under this title are subject to that
preference.
``(E) Use of nonprofit organizations.--As a condition of
receiving grant amounts under this title, the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands, shall to the extent practicable, provide
for private nonprofit organizations experienced in the
planning and development of affordable housing for Native
Hawaiians to carry out affordable housing activities with
those grant amounts.

``SEC. 810. ELIGIBLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES.

``(a) In General.--Affordable housing activities under this
section are activities conducted in accordance with the
requirements of section 811 to--
``(1) develop or to support affordable housing for rental
or homeownership; or
``(2) provide housing services with respect to affordable
housing, through the activities described in subsection (b).
``(b) Activities.--The activities described in this
subsection are the following:
``(1) Development.--The acquisition, new construction,
reconstruction, or moderate or substantial rehabilitation of
affordable housing, which may include--
``(A) real property acquisition;
``(B) site improvement;
``(C) the development of utilities and utility services;
``(D) conversion;
``(E) demolition;
``(F) financing;
``(G) administration and planning; and
``(H) other related activities.
``(2) Housing services.--The provision of housing-related
services for affordable housing, including--
``(A) housing counseling in connection with rental or
homeownership assistance;
``(B) the establishment and support of resident
organizations and resident management corporations;
``(C) energy auditing;
``(D) activities related to the provisions of self-
sufficiency and other services; and
``(E) other services related to assisting owners, tenants,
contractors, and other entities participating or seeking to
participate in other housing activities assisted pursuant to
this section.
``(3) Housing management services.--The provision of
management services for affordable housing, including--
``(A) the preparation of work specifications;
``(B) loan processing;
``(C) inspections;
``(D) tenant selection;
``(E) management of tenant-based rental assistance; and
``(F) management of affordable housing projects.
``(4) Crime prevention and safety activities.--The
provision of safety, security, and

[[Page 1004]]

law enforcement measures and activities appropriate to
protect residents of affordable housing from crime.
``(5) Model activities.--Housing activities under model
programs that are--
``(A) designed to carry out the purposes of this title; and
``(B) specifically approved by the Secretary as appropriate
for the purpose referred to in subparagraph (A).

``SEC. 811. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

``(a) Rents.--
``(1) Establishment.--Subject to paragraph (2), as a
condition to receiving grant amounts under this title, the
Director shall develop written policies governing rents and
homebuyer payments charged for dwelling units assisted under
this title, including methods by which such rents and
homebuyer payments are determined.
``(2) Maximum rent.--In the case of any low-income family
residing in a dwelling unit assisted with grant amounts under
this title, the monthly rent or homebuyer payment (as
applicable) for that dwelling unit may not exceed 30 percent
of the monthly adjusted income of that family.
``(b) Maintenance and Efficient Operation.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall, using amounts of any
grants received under this title, reserve and use for
operating under section 810 such amounts as may be necessary
to provide for the continued maintenance and efficient
operation of such housing.
``(2) Disposal of certain housing.--This subsection may not
be construed to prevent the Director, or any entity funded by
the Department, from demolishing or disposing of housing,
pursuant to regulations established by the Secretary.
``(c) Insurance Coverage.--As a condition to receiving
grant amounts under this title, the Director shall require
adequate insurance coverage for housing units that are owned
or operated or assisted with grant amounts provided under
this title.
``(d) Eligibility for Admission.--As a condition to
receiving grant amounts under this title, the Director shall
develop written policies governing the eligibility,
admission, and occupancy of families for housing assisted
with grant amounts provided under this title.
``(e) Management and Maintenance.--As a condition to
receiving grant amounts under this title, the Director shall
develop policies governing the management and maintenance of
housing assisted with grant amounts under this title.

``SEC. 812. TYPES OF INVESTMENTS.

``(a) In General.--Subject to section 811 and an applicable
housing plan approved under section 803, the Director shall
have--
``(1) the discretion to use grant amounts for affordable
housing activities through the use of--
``(A) equity investments;
``(B) interest-bearing loans or advances;
``(C) noninterest-bearing loans or advances;
``(D) interest subsidies;
``(E) the leveraging of private investments; or
``(F) any other form of assistance that the Secretary
determines to be consistent with the purposes of this title;
and
``(2) the right to establish the terms of assistance
provided with funds referred to in paragraph (1).
``(b) Investments.--The Director may invest grant amounts
for the purposes of carrying out affordable housing
activities in investment securities and other obligations, as
approved by the Secretary.

``SEC. 813. LOW-INCOME REQUIREMENT AND INCOME TARGETING.

``(a) In General.--Housing shall qualify for affordable
housing for purposes of this title only if--
``(1) each dwelling unit in the housing--
``(A) in the case of rental housing, is made available for
occupancy only by a family that is a low-income family at the
time of the initial occupancy of that family of that unit;
and
``(B) in the case of housing for homeownership, is made
available for purchase only by a family that is a low-income
family at the time of purchase; and
``(2) each dwelling unit in the housing will remain
affordable, according to binding commitments satisfactory to
the Secretary, for--
``(A) the remaining useful life of the property (as
determined by the Secretary) without regard to the term of
the mortgage or to transfer of ownership; or
``(B) such other period as the Secretary determines is the
longest feasible period of time consistent with sound
economics and the purposes of this title, except upon a
foreclosure by a lender (or upon other transfer in lieu of
foreclosure) if that action--
``(i) recognizes any contractual or legal rights of any
public agency, nonprofit sponsor, or other person or entity
to take an action that would--

``(I) avoid termination of low-income affordability, in the
case of foreclosure; or
``(II) transfer ownership in lieu of foreclosure; and

``(ii) is not for the purpose of avoiding low-income
affordability restrictions, as determined by the Secretary.
``(b) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), housing
assisted pursuant to section 809(a)(2)(B) shall be considered
affordable housing for purposes of this title.

``SEC. 814. LEASE REQUIREMENTS AND TENANT SELECTION.

``(a) Leases.--Except to the extent otherwise provided by
or inconsistent with the laws of the State of Hawaii, in
renting dwelling units in affordable housing assisted with
grant amounts provided under this title, the Director, owner,
or manager shall use leases that--
``(1) do not contain unreasonable terms and conditions;
``(2) require the Director, owner, or manager to maintain
the housing in compliance with applicable housing codes and
quality standards;
``(3) require the Director, owner, or manager to give
adequate written notice of termination of the lease, which
shall be the period of time required under applicable State
or local law;
``(4) specify that, with respect to any notice of eviction
or termination, notwithstanding any State or local law, a
resident shall be informed of the opportunity, before any
hearing or trial, to examine any relevant documents, record,
or regulations directly related to the eviction or
termination;
``(5) require that the Director, owner, or manager may not
terminate the tenancy, during the term of the lease, except
for serious or repeated violation of the terms and conditions
of the lease, violation of applicable Federal, State, or
local law, or for other good cause; and
``(6) provide that the Director, owner, and manager may
terminate the tenancy of a resident for any activity, engaged
in by the resident, any member of the household of the
resident, or any guest or other person under the control of
the resident, that--
``(A) threatens the health or safety of, or right to
peaceful enjoyment of the premises by, other residents or
employees of the Department, owner, or manager;
``(B) threatens the health or safety of, or right to
peaceful enjoyment of their premises by, persons residing in
the immediate vicinity of the premises; or
``(C) is criminal activity (including drug-related criminal
activity) on or off the premises.
``(b) Tenant or Homebuyer Selection.--As a condition to
receiving grant amounts under this title, the Director shall
adopt and use written tenant and homebuyer selection policies
and criteria that--
``(1) are consistent with the purpose of providing housing
for low-income families;
``(2) are reasonably related to program eligibility and the
ability of the applicant to perform the obligations of the
lease; and
``(3) provide for--
``(A) the selection of tenants and homebuyers from a
written waiting list in accordance with the policies and
goals set forth in an applicable housing plan approved under
section 803; and
``(B) the prompt notification in writing of any rejected
applicant of the grounds for that rejection.

``SEC. 815. REPAYMENT.

``If the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands uses grant
amounts to provide affordable housing under activities under
this title and, at any time during the useful life of the
housing, the housing does not comply with the requirement
under section 813(a)(2), the Secretary shall--
``(1) reduce future grant payments on behalf of the
Department by an amount equal to the grant amounts used for
that housing (under the authority of section 819(a)(2)); or
``(2) require repayment to the Secretary of any amount
equal to those grant amounts.

``SEC. 816. ANNUAL ALLOCATION.

``For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall allocate any
amounts made available for assistance under this title for
the fiscal year, in accordance with the formula established
pursuant to section 817 to the Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands if the Department complies with the requirements under
this title for a grant under this title.

``SEC. 817. ALLOCATION FORMULA.

``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall, by regulation
issued not later than the expiration of the 6-month period
beginning on the date of enactment of the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Amendments of 1999,
in the manner provided under section 807, establish a formula
to provide for the allocation of amounts available for a
fiscal year for block grants under this title in accordance
with the requirements of this section.
``(b) Factors for Determination of Need.--The formula under
subsection (a) shall be based on factors that reflect the
needs for assistance for affordable housing activities,
including--
``(1) the number of low-income dwelling units owned or
operated at the time pursuant to a contract between the
Director and the Secretary;
``(2) the extent of poverty and economic distress and the
number of Native Hawaiian families eligible to reside on the
Hawaiian Home Lands; and
``(3) any other objectively measurable conditions that the
Secretary and the Director may specify.
``(c) Other Factors for Consideration.--In establishing the
formula under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider
the relative

[[Page 1005]]

administrative capacities of the Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands and other challenges faced by the Department,
including--
``(1) geographic distribution within Hawaiian Home Lands;
and
``(2) technical capacity.
``(d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on
the date of enactment of the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Amendments of 1999.

``SEC. 818. REMEDIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.

``(a) Actions by Secretary Affecting Grant Amounts.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (b), if
the Secretary finds after reasonable notice and opportunity
for a hearing that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands has
failed to comply substantially with any provision of this
title, the Secretary shall--
``(A) terminate payments under this title to the
Department;
``(B) reduce payments under this title to the Department by
an amount equal to the amount of such payments that were not
expended in accordance with this title; or
``(C) limit the availability of payments under this title
to programs, projects, or activities not affected by such
failure to comply.
``(2) Actions.--If the Secretary takes an action under
subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall continue that action until the Secretary determines
that the failure by the Department to comply with the
provision has been remedied by the Department and the
Department is in compliance with that provision.
``(b) Noncompliance Because of a Technical Incapacity.--The
Secretary may provide technical assistance for the
Department, either directly or indirectly, that is designed
to increase the capability and capacity of the Director of
the Department to administer assistance provided under this
title in compliance with the requirements under this title if
the Secretary makes a finding under subsection (a), but
determines that the failure of the Department to comply
substantially with the provisions of this title--
``(1) is not a pattern or practice of activities
constituting willful noncompliance; and
``(2) is a result of the limited capability or capacity of
the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
``(c) Referral for Civil Action.--
``(1) Authority.--In lieu of, or in addition to, any action
that the Secretary may take under subsection (a), if the
Secretary has reason to believe that the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands has failed to comply substantially with
any provision of this title, the Secretary may refer the
matter to the Attorney General of the United States with a
recommendation that an appropriate civil action be
instituted.
``(2) Civil action.--Upon receiving a referral under
paragraph (1), the Attorney General may bring a civil action
in any United States district court of appropriate
jurisdiction for such relief as may be appropriate, including
an action--
``(A) to recover the amount of the assistance furnished
under this title that was not expended in accordance with
this title; or
``(B) for mandatory or injunctive relief.
``(d) Review.--
``(1) In general.--If the Director receives notice under
subsection (a) of the termination, reduction, or limitation
of payments under this Act, the Director--
``(A) may, not later than 60 days after receiving such
notice, file with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, or in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia, a petition for review of the action
of the Secretary; and
``(B) upon the filing of any petition under subparagraph
(A), shall forthwith transmit copies of the petition to the
Secretary and the Attorney General of the United States, who
shall represent the Secretary in the litigation.
``(2) Procedure.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall file in the court a
record of the proceeding on which the Secretary based the
action, as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United
States Code.
``(B) Objections.--No objection to the action of the
Secretary shall be considered by the court unless the
Department has registered the objection before the Secretary.
``(3) Disposition.--
``(A) Court proceedings.--
``(i) Jurisdiction of court.--The court shall have
jurisdiction to affirm or modify the action of the Secretary
or to set the action aside in whole or in part.
``(ii) Findings of fact.--If supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole, the findings of
fact by the Secretary shall be conclusive.
``(iii) Addition.--The court may order evidence, in
addition to the evidence submitted for review under this
subsection, to be taken by the Secretary, and to be made part
of the record.
``(B) Secretary.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary, by reason of the
additional evidence referred to in subparagraph (A) and filed
with the court--

``(I) may--

``(aa) modify the findings of fact of the Secretary; or
``(bb) make new findings; and

``(II) shall file--

``(aa) such modified or new findings; and
``(bb) the recommendation of the Secretary, if any, for the
modification or setting aside of the original action of the
Secretary.
``(ii) Findings.--The findings referred to in clause
(i)(II)(bb) shall, with respect to a question of fact, be
considered to be conclusive if those findings are--

``(I) supported by substantial evidence on the record; and
``(II) considered as a whole.

``(4) Finality.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
upon the filing of the record under this subsection with the
court--
``(i) the jurisdiction of the court shall be exclusive; and
``(ii) the judgment of the court shall be final.
``(B) Review by supreme court.--A judgment under
subparagraph (A) shall be subject to review by the Supreme
Court of the United States upon writ of certiorari or
certification, as provided in section 1254 of title 28,
United States Code.

``SEC. 819. MONITORING OF COMPLIANCE.

``(a) Enforceable Agreements.--
``(1) In general.--The Director, through binding
contractual agreements with owners or other authorized
entities, shall ensure long-term compliance with the
provisions of this title.
``(2) Measures.--The measures referred to in paragraph (1)
shall provide for--
``(A) to the extent allowable by Federal and State law, the
enforcement of the provisions of this title by the Department
and the Secretary; and
``(B) remedies for breach of the provisions referred to in
paragraph (1).
``(b) Periodic Monitoring.--
``(1) In general.--Not less frequently than annually, the
Director shall review the activities conducted and housing
assisted under this title to assess compliance with the
requirements of this title.
``(2) Review.--Each review under paragraph (1) shall
include onsite inspection of housing to determine compliance
with applicable requirements.
``(3) Results.--The results of each review under paragraph
(1) shall be--
``(A) included in a performance report of the Director
submitted to the Secretary under section 820; and
``(B) made available to the public.
``(c) Performance Measures.--The Secretary shall establish
such performance measures as may be necessary to assess
compliance with the requirements of this title.

``SEC. 820. PERFORMANCE REPORTS.

``(a) Requirement.--For each fiscal year, the Director
shall--
``(1) review the progress the Department has made during
that fiscal year in carrying out the housing plan submitted
by the Department under section 803; and
``(2) submit a report to the Secretary (in a form
acceptable to the Secretary) describing the conclusions of
the review.
``(b) Content.--Each report submitted under this section
for a fiscal year shall--
``(1) describe the use of grant amounts provided to the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands for that fiscal year;
``(2) assess the relationship of the use referred to in
paragraph (1) to the goals identified in the housing plan;
``(3) indicate the programmatic accomplishments of the
Department; and
``(4) describe the manner in which the Department would
change its housing plan submitted under section 803 as a
result of its experiences.
``(c) Submissions.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) establish a date for submission of each report under
this section;
``(2) review each such report; and
``(3) with respect to each such report, make
recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate to
carry out the purposes of this title.
``(d) Public Availability.--
``(1) Comments by beneficiaries.--In preparing a report
under this section, the Director shall make the report
publicly available to the beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et seq.) and give a
sufficient amount of time to permit those beneficiaries to
comment on that report before it is submitted to the
Secretary (in such manner and at such time as the Director
may determine).
``(2) Summary of comments.--The report shall include a
summary of any comments received by the Director from
beneficiaries under paragraph (1) regarding the program to
carry out the housing plan.

``SEC. 821. REVIEW AND AUDIT BY SECRETARY.

``(a) Annual Review.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, not less frequently
than on an annual basis, make such reviews and audits as may
be necessary or appropriate to determine whether--
``(A) the Director has--
``(i) carried out eligible activities under this title in a
timely manner;
``(ii) carried out and made certifications in accordance
with the requirements and the primary objectives of this
title and with other applicable laws; and
``(iii) a continuing capacity to carry out the eligible
activities in a timely manner;

[[Page 1006]]

``(B) the Director has complied with the housing plan
submitted by the Director under section 803; and
``(C) the performance reports of the Department under
section 821 are accurate.
``(2) Onsite visits.--Each review conducted under this
section shall, to the extent practicable, include onsite
visits by employees of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
``(b) Report by Secretary.--The Secretary shall give the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands not less than 30 days to
review and comment on a report under this subsection. After
taking into consideration the comments of the Department, the
Secretary may revise the report and shall make the comments
of the Department and the report with any revisions, readily
available to the public not later than 30 days after receipt
of the comments of the Department.
``(c) Effect of Reviews.--The Secretary may make
appropriate adjustments in the amount of annual grants under
this title in accordance with the findings of the Secretary
pursuant to reviews and audits under this section. The
Secretary may adjust, reduce, or withdraw grant amounts, or
take other action as appropriate in accordance with the
reviews and audits of the Secretary under this section,
except that grant amounts already expended on affordable
housing activities may not be recaptured or deducted from
future assistance provided to the Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands.

``SEC. 822. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE AUDITS.

``To the extent that the financial transactions of the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands involving grant amounts
under this title relate to amounts provided under this title,
those transactions may be audited by the Comptroller General
of the United States under such regulations as may be
prescribed by the Comptroller General. The Comptroller
General of the United States shall have access to all books,
accounts, records, reports, files, and other papers, things,
or property belonging to or in use by the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands pertaining to such financial transactions
and necessary to facilitate the audit.

``SEC. 823. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

``(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the
conclusion of each fiscal year in which assistance under this
title is made available, the Secretary shall submit to the
Congress a report that contains--
``(1) a description of the progress made in accomplishing
the objectives of this title;
``(2) a summary of the use of funds available under this
title during the preceding fiscal year; and
``(3) a description of the aggregate outstanding loan
guarantees under section 184A of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992.
``(b) Related Reports.--The Secretary may require the
Director to submit to the Secretary such reports and other
information as may be necessary in order for the Secretary to
prepare the report required under subsection (a).

``SEC. 824. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department
of Housing and Urban Development for grants under this title
such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.''.

SEC. 4. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING.

Subtitle E of title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992 is amended by inserting after section
184 (12 U.S.C. 1715z-13a) the following:

``SEC. 184A. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Department of hawaiian home lands.--The term
`Department of Hawaiian Home Lands' means the agency or
department of the government of the State of Hawaii that is
responsible for the administration of the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 set seq.).
``(2) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a
Native Hawaiian family, the Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, private nonprofit or
for profit organizations experienced in the planning and
development of affordable housing for Native Hawaiians.
``(3) Family.--The term `family' means 1 or more persons
maintaining a household, as the Secretary shall by regulation
provide.
``(4) Guarantee fund.--The term `Guarantee Fund' means the
Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund established under
subsection (i).
``(5) Hawaiian home lands.--The term `Hawaiian Home Lands'
means lands that--
``(A) have the status of Hawaiian Home Lands under section
204 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (42 Stat. 110); or
``(B) are acquired pursuant to that Act.
``(6) Native hawaiian.--The term `Native Hawaiian' has the
meaning given the term `native Hawaiian' in section 201 of
the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et
seq.).
``(7) Office of hawaiian affairs.--The term `Office of
Hawaiian Affairs' means the entity of that name established
under the constitution of the State of Hawaii.
``(b) Authority.--To provide access to sources of private
financing to Native Hawaiian families who otherwise could not
acquire housing financing because of the unique legal status
of the Hawaiian home lands or as a result of a lack of access
to private financial markets, the Secretary may guarantee an
amount not to exceed 100 percent of the unpaid principal and
interest that is due on an eligible loan under subsection
(b).
``(c) Eligible Loans.--Under this section, a loan is an
eligible loan if that loan meets the following requirements:
``(1) Eligible borrowers.--The loans is made only to a
borrower who--
``(A) is a Native Hawaiian family;
``(B) the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands;
``(C) the Office of Hawaiian Affairs; or
``(D) a private nonprofit organization experienced in the
planning and development of affordable housing for Native
Hawaiians.
``(2) Eligible housing.--
``(A) In general.--The loan will be used to construct,
acquire, or rehabilitate not more than 4-family dwellings
that are standard housing and are located on Hawaiian Home
Lands for which a housing plan described in subparagraph (B)
applies.
``(B) Housing plan.--A housing plan described in this
subparagraph is a housing plan that--
``(i) has been submitted and approved by the Secretary
under section 803 of the Native American Housing Assistance
and Self-Determination Amendments of 1999; and
``(ii) provides for the use of loan guarantees under this
section to provide affordable homeownership housing on
Hawaiian Home Lands.
``(3) Security.--The loan may be secured by any collateral
authorized under applicable Federal law or State law.
``(4) Lenders.--
``(A) In general.--The loan shall be made only by a lender
approved by, and meeting qualifications established by, the
Secretary, including any lender described in subparagraph
(B), except that a loan otherwise insured or guaranteed by an
agency of the Federal Government or made by the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands from amounts borrowed from the United
Sates shall not be eligible for a guarantee under this
section.
``(B) Approval.--The following lenders shall be considered
to be lenders that have been approved by the Secretary:
``(i) Any mortgagee approved by the Secretary for
participation in the single family mortgage insurance program
under title II of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.A. 1707
et seq.).
``(ii) Any lender that makes housing loans under chapter 37
of title 38, United States Code, that are automatically
guaranteed under section 3702(d) of title 38, United States
Code.
``(iii) Any lender approved by the Secretary of Agriculture
to make guaranteed loans for single family housing under the
Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C.A. 1441 et seq.).
``(iv) Any other lender that is supervised, approved,
regulated, or insured by any agency of the Federal
Government.
``(5) Terms.--The loan shall--
``(A) be made for a term not exceeding 30 years;
``(B) bear interest (exclusive of the guarantee fee under
subsection (d) and service charges, if any) at a rate agreed
upon by the borrower and the lender and determined by the
Secretary to be reasonable, but not to exceed the rate
generally charged in the area (as determined by the
Secretary) for home mortgage loans not guaranteed or insured
by any agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government;
``(C) involve a principal obligation not exceeding--
``(i) 97.75 percent of the appraised value of the property
as of the date the loan is accepted for guarantee (or 98.75
percent if the value of the property is $50,000 or less); or
``(ii) the amount approved by the Secretary under this
section; and
``(D) involve a payment on account of the property--
``(i) in cash or its equivalent; or
``(ii) through the value of any improvements to the
property made through the skilled or unskilled labor of the
borrower, as the Secretary shall provide.
``(d) Certificate of Guarantee.--
``(1) Approval process.--
``(A) In general.--Before the Secretary approves any loan
for guarantee under this section, the lender shall submit the
application for the loan to the Secretary for examination.
``(B) Approval.--If the Secretary approves the application
submitted under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall issue a
certificate under this subsection as evidence of the loan
guarantee approved.
``(2) Standard for approval.--The Secretary may approve a
loan for guarantee under this section and issue a certificate
under this subsection only if the Secretary determines that
there is a reasonable prospect of repayment of the loan.
``(3) Effect.--
``(A) In general.--A certificate of guarantee issued under
this subsection by the Secretary shall be conclusive evidence
of the eligibility of the loan for guarantee under this
section and the amount of that guarantee.
``(B) Evidence.--The evidence referred to in subparagraph
(A) shall be incontestable in the hands of the bearer.

[[Page 1007]]

``(C) Full faith and credit.--The full faith and credit of
the United States is pledged to the payment of all amounts
agreed to be paid by the Secretary as security for the
obligations made by the Secretary under this section.
``(4) Fraud and misrepresentation.--This subsection may not
be construed--
``(A) to preclude the Secretary from establishing defenses
against the original lender based on fraud or material
misrepresentation; or
``(B) to bar the Secretary from establishing by regulations
that are on the date of issuance or disbursement, whichever
is earlier, partial defenses to the amount payable on the
guarantee.
``(e) Guarantee Fee.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall fix and collect a
guarantee fee for the guarantee of a loan under this section,
which may not exceed the amount equal to 1 percent of the
principal obligation of the loan.
``(2) Payment.--The fee under this subsection shall--
``(A) be paid by the lender at time of issuance of the
guarantee; and
``(B) be adequate, in the determination of the Secretary,
to cover expenses and probable losses.
``(3) Deposit.--The Secretary shall deposit any fees
collected under this subsection in the Native Hawaiian
Housing Loan Guarantee Fund established under subsection (j).
``(f) Liability Under Guarantee.--The liability under a
guarantee provided under this section shall decrease or
increase on a pro rata basis according to any decrease or
increase in the amount of the unpaid obligation under the
provisions of the loan agreement involved.
``(g) Transfer and Assumption.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, any loan guaranteed under this section,
including the security given for the loan, may be sold or
assigned by the lender to any financial institution subject
to examination and supervision by an agency of the Federal
Government or of any State or the District of Columbia.
``(h) Disqualification of Lenders and Civil Money
Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Grounds for action.--The Secretary may take action
under subparagraph (B) if the Secretary determines that any
lender or holder of a guarantee certificate under subsection
(c)--
``(i) has failed--

``(I) to maintain adequate accounting records;
``(II) to service adequately loans guaranteed under this
section; or
``(III) to exercise proper credit or underwriting judgment;
or

``(ii) has engaged in practices otherwise detrimental to
the interest of a borrower or the United States.
``(B) Actions.--Upon a determination by the Secretary that
a holder of a guarantee certificate under subsection (c) has
failed to carry out an activity described in subparagraph
(A)(i) or has engaged in practices described in subparagraph
(A)(ii), the Secretary may--
``(i) refuse, either temporarily or permanently, to
guarantee any further loans made by such lender or holder;
``(ii) bar such lender or holder from acquiring additional
loans guaranteed under this section; and
``(iii) require that such lender or holder assume not less
than 10 percent of any loss on further loans made or held by
the lender or holder that are guaranteed under this section.
``(2) Civil money penalties for intentional violations.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may impose a civil
monetary penalty on a lender or holder of a guarantee
certificate under subsection (d) if the Secretary determines
that the holder or lender has intentionally failed--
``(i) to maintain adequate accounting records;
``(ii) to adequately service loans guaranteed under this
section; or
``(iii) to exercise proper credit or underwriting judgment.
``(B) Penalties.--A civil monetary penalty imposed under
this paragraph shall be imposed in the manner and be in an
amount provided under section 536 of the National Housing Act
(12 U.S.C.A. 1735f-1) with respect to mortgagees and lenders
under that Act.
``(3) Payment on loans made in good faith.--Notwithstanding
paragraphs (1) and (2), if a loan was made in good faith, the
Secretary may not refuse to pay a lender or holder of a valid
guarantee on that loan, without regard to whether the lender
or holder is barred under this subsection.
``(i) Payment Under Guarantee.--
``(1) Lender options.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Notification.--If borrower on a loan guaranteed under
this section defaults on the loan, the holder of the
guarantee certificate shall provide written notice of the
default to the Secretary.
``(ii) Payment.--Upon providing the notice required under
clause (i), the holder of the guarantee certificate shall be
entitled to payment under the guarantee (subject to the
provisions of this section) and may proceed to obtain payment
in 1 of the following manners:

``(I) Foreclosure.--

``(aa) In general.--The holder of the certificate may
initiate foreclosure proceedings (after providing written
notice of that action to the Secretary).
``(bb) Payment.--Upon a final order by the court
authorizing foreclosure and submission to the Secretary of a
claim for payment under the guarantee, the Secretary shall
pay to the holder of the certificate the pro rata portion of
the amount guaranteed (as determined pursuant to subsection
(f)) plus reasonable fees and expenses as approved by the
Secretary.
``(cc) Subrogation.--The rights of the Secretary shall be
subrogated to the rights of the holder of the guarantee. The
holder shall assign the obligation and security to the
Secretary.

``(II) No foreclosure.--

``(aa) In general.--Without seeking foreclosure (or in any
case in which a foreclosure proceeding initiated under clause
(i) continues for a period in excess of 1 year), the holder
of the guarantee may submit to the Secretary a request to
assign the obligation and security interest to the Secretary
in return for payment of the claim under the guarantee. The
Secretary may accept assignment of the loan if the Secretary
determines that the assignment is in the best interest of the
United States.
``(bb) Payment.--Upon assignment, the Secretary shall pay
to the holder of the guarantee the pro rata portion of the
amount guaranteed (as determined under subsection (f)).
``(cc) Subrogation.--The rights of the Secretary shall be
subrogated to the rights of the holder of the guarantee. The
holder shall assign the obligation and security to the
Secretary.
``(B) Requirements.--Before any payment under a guarantee
is made under subparagraph (A), the holder of the guarantee
shall exhaust all reasonable possibilities of collection.
Upon payment, in whole or in part, to the holder, the note or
judgment evidencing the debt shall be assigned to the United
States and the holder shall have no further claim against the
borrower or the United States. The Secretary shall then take
such action to collect as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
``(2) Limitations on liquidation.--
``(A) In general.--If a borrower defaults on a loan
guaranteed under this section that involves a security
interest in restricted Hawaiian Home Land property, the
mortgagee or the Secretary shall only pursue liquidation
after offering to transfer the account to another eligible
Hawaiian family or the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
``(B) Limitation.--If, after action is taken under
subparagraph (A), the mortgagee or the Secretary subsequently
proceeds to liquidate the account, the mortgagee or the
Secretary shall not sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of
or alienate the property described in subparagraph (A) except
to another eligible Hawaiian family or to the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands.
``(j) Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury
of the United States the Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund
for the purpose of providing loan guarantees under this
section.
``(2) Credits.--The Guarantee Fund shall be credited with--
``(A) any amount, claims, notes, mortgages, contracts, and
property acquired by the Secretary under this section, and
any collections and proceeds therefrom;
``(B) any amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph (7);
``(C) any guarantee fees collected under subsection (d);
and
``(D) any interest or earnings on amounts invested under
paragraph (4).
``(3) Use.--Amounts in the Guarantee Fund shall be
available, to the extent provided in appropriations Acts,
for--
``(A) fulfilling any obligations of the Secretary with
respect to loans guaranteed under this section, including the
costs (as that term is defined in section 502 of the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a)) of such loans;
``(B) paying taxes, insurance, prior liens, expenses
necessary to make fiscal adjustment in connection with the
application and transmittal of collections, and other
expenses and advances to protect the Secretary for loans
which are guaranteed under this section or held by the
Secretary;
``(C) acquiring such security property at foreclosure sales
or otherwise;
``(D) paying administrative expenses in connection with
this section; and
``(E) reasonable and necessary costs of rehabilitation and
repair to properties that the Secretary holds or owns
pursuant to this section.
``(4) Investment.--Any amounts in the Guarantee Fund
determined by the Secretary to be in excess of amounts
currently required at the time of the determination to carry
out this section may be invested in obligations of the United
States.
``(5) Limitation on commitments to guarantee loans and
mortgages.--
``(A) Requirement of appropriations.--The authority of the
Secretary to enter into

[[Page 1008]]

commitments to guarantee loans under this section shall be
effective for any fiscal year to the extent, or in such
amounts as, are or have been provided in appropriations Acts,
without regard to the fiscal year for which such amounts were
appropriated.
``(B) Limitations on costs of guarantees.--The authority of
the Secretary to enter into commitments to guarantee loans
under this section shall be effective for any fiscal year
only to the extent that amounts in the Guarantee Fund are or
have been made available in appropriations Acts to cover the
costs (as that term is defined in section 502 of the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a)) of such loan
guarantees for such fiscal year. Any amounts appropriated
pursuant to this subparagraph shall remain available until
expended.
``(C) Limitation on outstanding aggregate principal
amount.--Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and
(B), the Secretary may enter into commitments to guarantee
loans under this section for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001,
2002, 2003, and 2004 with an aggregate outstanding principal
amount not exceeding $100,000,000 for each such fiscal year.
``(6) Liabilities.--All liabilities and obligations of the
assets credited to the Guarantee Fund under paragraph (2)(A)
shall be liabilities and obligations of the Guarantee Fund.
``(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Guarantee Fund to carry
out this section such sums as may be necessary for each of
fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.
``(k) Requirements for Standard Housing.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, by regulation,
establish housing safety and quality standards to be applied
for use under this section.
``(2) Standards.--The standards referred to in paragraph
(1) shall--
``(A) provide sufficient flexibility to permit the use of
various designs and materials in housing acquired with loans
guaranteed under this section; and
``(B) require each dwelling unit in any housing acquired in
the manner described in subparagraph (A) to--
``(i) be decent, safe, sanitary, and modest in size and
design;
``(ii) conform with applicable general construction
standards for the region in which the housing is located;
``(iii) contain a plumbing system that--

``(I) uses a properly installed system of piping;
``(II) includes a kitchen sink and a partitional bathroom
with lavatory, toilet, and bath or shower; and
``(III) uses water supply, plumbing, and sewage disposal
systems that conform to any minimum standards established by
the applicable county or State;

``(iv) contain an electrical system using wiring and
equipment properly installed to safely supply electrical
energy for adequate lighting and for operation of appliances
that conforms to any appropriate county, State, or national
code;
``(v) be not less than the size provided under the
applicable locally adopted standards for size of dwelling
units, except that the Secretary, upon request of the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands may waive the size
requirements under this paragraph; and
``(vi) conform with the energy performance requirements for
new construction established by the Secretary under section
526(a) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.A. 1735f-4),
unless the Secretary determines that the requirements are not
applicable.
``(l) Applicability of Civil Rights Statutes.--To the
extent that the requirements of title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) or of title VIII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) apply to a
guarantee provided under this subsection, nothing in the
requirements concerning discrimination on the basis of race
shall be construed to prevent the provision of the guarantee
to an eligible entity on the basis that the entity serves
Native Hawaiian families or is a Native Hawaiian family.''.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 226. A bill to promote democracy and good governance in Nigeria,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

the nigeria democracy and civil society empowerment act of 1999

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation
regarding Nigeria, a country that stands today astride the border
between a repressive history and a potentially productive future.
As the Ranking Democrat of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, I have
long been concerned about the collapsing economic and political
situation in Nigeria. Nigeria, with its rich history, abundant natural
resources and wonderful cultural diversity, has the potential to be an
important regional leader in West Africa, and the entire African
continent. But, sadly, too many of Nigeria's leaders have squandered
that potential and the good will of the world with repressive policies,
human rights abuses and corruption.
The Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment Act of 1999 that
I offer today provides a clear framework for U.S. policy toward that
troubled West African nation. The Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society
Empowerment Act declares that the United States should encourage the
political, economic and legal reforms necessary to ensure the rule of
law and respect for human rights in Nigeria and should aggressively
support a timely and effective transition to democratic, civilian
government for the people of Nigeria.
This bill draws heavily from legislation introduced during the last
two Congresses with the leadership of several other distinguished
members of Congress. In the 104th Congress, I joined the former chair
of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, Senator Kassebaum, and 20 other
Senators in introducing sanctions legislation. In the 105th Congress, I
introduced an updated version of that bill, a companion measure of
which was introduced in the House by the distinguished chair of the
House International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman of New York, and a
distinguished member of that Committee and of the Congressional Black
Caucus, Mr. Payne of New Jersey. I commend the help and assistance of
all of my colleagues on this important issue and I appreciate the
opportunity to work with them toward the broader goal of a freer
Nigeria.
Mr. President, the Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment
Act provides by law for many of the sanctions that the United States
has had in place against Nigeria for a number of years. It includes a
ban on most foreign direct assistance and a ban on the sale of military
goods and military assistance to Nigeria, and suggests the reimposition
of restriction on visas for top Nigerian officials. But none of these
sanctions will be imposed if the President can certify to the Congress
that specific conditions, which I will call ``benchmarks,'' regarding
the transition to democracy have taken place in Nigeria. These
benchmarks include free and fair democratic elections, the release of
political prisoners, freedom of the press, continued access for
international human rights monitors and the repeal of the many
repressive decrees pressed upon the Nigerian people by successive
military regimes.
This legislation also provides for $37 million in development
assistance over three years to support democracy and governance
programs and the activities of the U.S. Information Agency, and
mandates a larger presence for the U.S. Agency for International
Development. I want to emphasize that this bill authorizes no new
money. All of these funds would come out of existing USAID and USIA
appropriations.
Finally, the bill requires the Secretary of State to submit a report
on corruption in Nigeria including the evidence of corruption by
government officials in Nigeria and the impact of corruption on the
delivery of government services in Nigeria, on U.S. business interests
in Nigeria, and on Nigeria's foreign policy. It would also require that
the Secretary's report include information on the impact on U.S.
citizens of advance fee fraud and other fraudulent business schemes
originating in Nigeria.
The intent of this legislation is two-fold. First, it will continue
to send an unequivocal message to whomever is ruling Nigeria that
disregard for democracy, human rights and the institutions of civil
society in Nigeria is simply unacceptable. Second, the bill provides
some direction to the Clinton Administration which had considerable
difficulty articulating a coherent policy on Nigeria throughout the
Abacha regime, and which, I fear, has too quickly embraced the Abubakar
regime despite several important outstanding problems.
Nigeria has suffered under military rule for most of its nearly 40
years as an independent nation. By virtue of its size, geographic
location, and resource base, it is economically and strategically
important both in regional and

[[Page 1009]]

international terms. Nigeria is critical to American interests. But
Nigeria's future was nearly destroyed by the military government of
General Sani Abacha. Abacha presided over a Nigeria stunted by rampant
corruption, economic mismanagement and the brutal subjugation of its
people.
Gen. Abacha was by any definition an authoritarian leader of the
worst sort. He routinely imprisoned individuals for expressing their
political opinions and skimmed Nigeria's precious resources for his own
gains and that of his supporters and cronies. He pretended to set a
timetable for a democratic transition, but each of the five officially
sanctioned parties under his plan ended up endorsing Gen. Abacha as
their candidate in what would have been nothing more than a circus
referendum on Abacha himself.
During the dark days of the Abacha regime, any criticism of the so-
called transition process was punishable by five years in a Nigerian
prison. Nigerian human rights activists and government critics were
commonly whisked away to secret trials before military courts and
imprisoned; independent media outlets were silenced; workers' rights to
organize were restricted; and the infamous State Security [Detention of
Persons] Decree No. 2, giving the military sweeping powers of arrest
and detention, remained in force.
Perhaps the most horrific example of repression by the Abacha
government was the execution of human rights and environmental activist
Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others in November 1995 on trumped-up charges.
Between the time of that barbaric spectacle and his death, Abacha
appeared to be working even harder to tighten its grip on the country,
wasting no opportunity to subjugate the people of Nigeria.
But with the replacement of Abacha by the current military ruler,
Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar, there has been reason to be optimistic about
Nigeria's future. Although he has not yet moved to repeal the
repressive decrees that place severe restrictions on the basic freedoms
of Nigerians, including aforementioned Decree No. 2, Gen. Abubakar has
made significant progress in enacting political reforms, including the
establishment of a realistic time line for the transition to civilian
rule and guidelines for political participation. According to his
transition plan, power will be handed over to a civilian government of
May 29, 1999, after a series of elections scheduled for December 5,
1998 (local government), January 9, 1999 (state assembly and
governors), February 20 1999 (national assembly) and February 27, 1999
(presidential). Abubakar also agreed to release political prisoners,
and some have indeed been released including several prominent
individuals.
Most Nigerians appear to have embraced this transition program, and
many in the international community have welcomed Gen. Abubakar's bold
statements. Nevertheless, observers remain apprehensive about the role
of the security forces and of the military, perceived weaknesses in the
electoral system, the lack of a clear constitutional order, and the
possibility of violence during the electoral period. Nigerians also
remain concerned about the important questions of federalism and
decentralization--including the control and distribution of national
wealth--which have yet to be satisfactorily worked out. These concerns,
which remain a backdrop to the current transition, tend to dampen what
is otherwise a largely optimistic and enthusiastic attitude throughout
the country.
Thus, as pleased as I am to see the progress being made, I remain
cautious about embracing the new dispensation until we can actually see
it in place. Adding to my concerns is the disturbing behavior of the
military over New Year's weekend in Bayelsa state. According to
unconfirmed reports, as many as 100 people may have been killed in the
area around Yenagoa, and the military reinforcements have brought in a
force of 10,000 to 15,000 troops to the area. The military government
also declared as state of emergency for several days. While the
circumstances surrounding the crackdown are unclear, it is troubling
that--even during this sensitive time of political transition--the
Abubakar regime would rely so heavily on hold habits. Minor
disturbance? Send in thousands of troops to take care of it! I fear
these troops do not know how to ``maintain public order''; rather, they
know only how to implement repression. How seriously can we take
Abubakar's encouraging statements about political reform, when he
continues to use the instruments of repression learned under the Abacha
regime?
Nigeria's political transition is taking place in the context of
economic and political collapse. Nigeria has the potential to be the
economic powerhouse on the African continent, a key regional political
leader, and an important American trading partner, but it is none of
these things. Despite its wealth, economic activity in Nigeria
continues to stagnate, Even oil revenues are not what they might be,
but they remain the only reliable source of economic growth, with the
United States purchasing an estimated 41 percent of the output.
Corruption and criminal activity in this military-controlled economic
and political system have become common, including reports of drug
trafficking and consumer fraud schemes that have originated in Nigeria
and reached into the United States, including my home state of
Wisconsin.
The last time Nigeria appeared posied finally to make a democratic
transition, during the 1993 presidential election, the military quickly
annulled the results, and promptly put into prision the presumed winner
of that eclection Chief Moshood Abiola.
Despite numerous domestic and international pleas for his release, he
remained in prison until his tragic death in July. Years of neglect and
months of solitary confinement took its toll on Chief Abiola, and
barely one month after the death of General Abacha, Abiola died of an
apparent heart attack during a meeting with senior American officials.
It is unfortunate, but Nigeria suffers greatly from the weight of its
tortured history. I truly hope the transition currently underway will
have better results than previous ones, but we must not let hope and
expectation cloud our standards for what is best for Nigeria. I am
afraid that the international community, and particularly the Clinton
administration, are so quick to reward counties for good behavior, that
they then trend to ignore continuing bad behavior. I have noticed this
problem in U.S. relations with Indonesia, China, and elsewhere, and it
certainly is a concern with Nigeria now.
It is in that light that I have decided to reintroduce my bill. This
may sound odd, but I actually hope I don't need to pursue this
legislation in its current form. I sincerely hope that the transition
in Nigeria goes according to all our best wishes, and that there will
be no need to impose these sanctions. But if it does not, the spoilers
should be aware the U.S. Congress is watching, and will act. This bill
provides the means for that action. We cannot let Nigeria spiral down
into the quagmire that has overtaken so much of the continent.
I have long urged the Administration to take the toughest stance
possible in support of democracy in Nigeria. The regime in Nigeria must
know that anything less than a transparent transition to civilian rule
will be met with severe consequences, including new sanctions as
mandated in this bill.
Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today represents and
effort to encourage the best that Nigeria has to offer, to support
those Nigerians who have worked tirelessly and fearlessly for democracy
and civilian rule and to move our own government toward a Nigeria
policy that vigorously reflects the best American values.
The provisions of my bill include benchmarks defining what would
constitute an open political process in Nigeria. Despite all the
tumultuous events that have taken place in these few months. I still
believe these benchmarks are important, and I continue to call on Gen.
Abubaker to implement as soon as possible these important changes, such
as the repeal of the repressive decrees enacted under Abacha's rule, so
that genuine reform may flourish in Nigeria.

[[Page 1010]]

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 226

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 ``Nigerian Democracy and Civil
Society Empowerment Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The rule by successive military regimes in Nigeria has
harmed the lives of the people of Nigeria, undermined
confidence in the Nigerian economy, damaged relations between
Nigeria and the United States, and threatened the political
and economic stability of West Africa.
(2) The current military regime, under the leadership of
Gen. Abdusalami Abubakar, has made significant progress in
liberalizing the political environment in Nigeria, including
the release of many political prisoners, increased respect
for freedom of assembly, expression and association, and the
establishment of a timeframe for a transition to civilian
rule.
(3) Previous military regimes allowed Nigeria to become a
haven for international drug trafficking rings and other
criminal organizations, although the current government has
taken some steps to cooperate with the United States
Government in halting such trafficking.
(4) Since 1993, the United States and other members of the
international community have imposed limited sanctions
against Nigeria in response to human rights violations and
political repression, although some of these sanctions have
been lifted in response to recent political liberalization.
(5) Despite the progress made in protecting certain
freedoms, numerous decrees are still in force that suspend
the constitutional protection of fundamental human rights,
allow indefinite detention without charge, and revoke the
jurisdiction of civilian courts over executive actions.
(6) As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and
Peoples' Rights, and a signatory to the Harare Commonwealth
Declaration, Nigeria is obligated to fairly conduct elections
that guarantee the free expression of the will of the
electors.
(7) As the leading military force within the Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS) peacekeeping force,
Nigeria has played a major role in attempting to secure peace
in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
(8) Despite the optimism expressed by many observers about
the progress that has been made in Nigeria, the country's
recent history raises serious questions about the potential
success of the transition process. In particular, events in
the Niger Delta over the New Year underscore the critical
need for ongoing monitoring of the situation and indicate
that a return by the military to repressive methods is still
a possibility.
(b) Declaration of Policy.--Congress declares that the
United States should encourage political, economic, and legal
reforms necessary to ensure rule of law and respect for human
rights in Nigeria and support a timely, effective, and
sustainable transition to democratic, civilian government in
Nigeria.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

(a) International Cooperation.--It is the sense of Congress
that the President should actively seek to coordinate with
other countries to further--
(1) the United States policy of promoting the rule of law
and respect for human rights; and
(2) the transition to democratic civilian government.
(b) United Nations Human Rights Commission.--It is the
sense of Congress that, in light of the importance of Nigeria
to the region and the severity of successive military
regimes, the President should instruct the United States
Representative to the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights (UNCHR) to use the voice and vote of the United States
at the annual meeting of the Commission--
(1) to condemn human rights abuses in Nigeria, as
appropriate, while recognizing the progress that has been
made; and
(2) to press for the continued renewal of the mandate of,
and continued access to Nigeria for, the special rapporteur
on Nigeria.

SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN
NIGERIA.

(a) Development Assistance.--
(1) In general.--Of the amounts made available for fiscal
years 2000, 2001, and 2002 to carry out chapter 1 of part I
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et
seq.), not less than $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, not
less than $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and not less than
$15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 should be available for
assistance described in paragraph (2) for Nigeria.
(2) Assistance described.--
(A) In general.--The assistance described in this paragraph
is assistance provided to nongovernmental organizations for
the purpose of promoting democracy, good governance, and the
rule of law in Nigeria.
(B) Additional requirement.--In providing assistance under
this subsection, the Administrator of the United States
Agency for International Development shall ensure that
nongovernmental organizations receiving such assistance
represent a broad cross-section of society in Nigeria and
seek to promote democracy, human rights, and accountable
government.
(3) Grants for promotion of human rights.--Of the amounts
made available for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 under
paragraph (1), not less than $500,000 for each such fiscal
year should be available to the United States Agency for
International Development for the purpose of providing grants
of not more than $25,000 each to support individuals or
nongovernmental organizations that seek to promote, directly
or indirectly, the advancement of human rights in Nigeria.
(b) USIA Information Assistance.--Of the amounts made
available for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 under
subsection (a)(1), not less than $1,000,000 for fiscal year
2000, $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $2,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002 should be made available to the United
States Information Agency for the purpose of supporting its
activities in Nigeria, including the promotion of greater
awareness among Nigerians of constitutional democracy, the
rule of law, and respect for human rights.
(c) Staff Levels and Assignments of United States Personnel
in Nigeria.--
(1) Finding.--Congress finds that staff levels at the
office of the United States Agency for International
Development in Lagos, Nigeria, are inadequate.
(2) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development should--
(A) increase the number of United States personnel at such
Agency's office in Lagos, Nigeria, from within the current,
overall staff resources of such Agency in order for such
office to be sufficiently staffed to carry out subsection
(a); and
(B) consider placement of personnel elsewhere in Nigeria.

SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO THE GOVERNMENT
OF NIGERIA; PROHIBITION ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE
FOR NIGERIA; REQUIREMENT TO OPPOSE MULTILATERAL
ASSISTANCE FOR NIGERIA.

(a) Prohibition on Economic Assistance.--
(1) In general.--Economic assistance (including funds
previously appropriated for economic assistance) shall not be
provided to the Government of Nigeria.
(2) Economic assistance defined.--As used in this
subsection, the term ``economic assistance''--
(A) means--
(i) any assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) and any assistance under
chapter 4 of part II of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.)
(relating to economic support fund); and
(ii) any financing by the Export-Import Bank of the United
States, financing and assistance by the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation, and assistance by the Trade and
Development Agency; and
(B) does not include disaster relief assistance, refugee
assistance, or narcotics control assistance under chapter 8
of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2291 et seq.).
(b) Prohibition on Military Assistance or Arms Transfers.--
(1) In general.--Military assistance (including funds
previously appropriated for military assistance) or arms
transfers shall not be provided to Nigeria.
(2) Military assistance or arms transfers.--The term
``military assistance or arms transfers'' means--
(A) assistance under chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2311 et seq.) (relating to
military assistance), including the transfer of excess
defense articles under section 516 of that Act (22 U.S.C.
2321j);
(B) assistance under chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.) (relating to
international military education and training);
(C) assistance under the ``Foreign Military Financing
Program'' under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2763); or
(D) the transfer of defense articles, defense services, or
design and construction services under the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), including defense
articles and defense services licensed or approved for export
under section 38 of that Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).
(c) Requirement To Oppose Multilateral Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
instruct the United States executive director to each of the
international financial institutions described in paragraph
(2) to use the voice and vote of the United States to oppose
any assistance to the Government of Nigeria.
(2) International financial institutions described.--The
international financial institutions described in this
paragraph are

[[Page 1011]]

the African Development Bank, the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, the International Development
Association, the International Finance Corporation, the
Multilateral Investment Guaranty Agency, and the
International Monetary Fund.

SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ADMISSION INTO THE UNITED
STATES OF CERTAIN NIGERIAN NATIONALS.

It is the sense of Congress that unless the President
determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional
committees by July 1, 1999, that a democratic transition to
civilian rule has taken place in Nigeria, the Secretary of
State should deny a visa to any alien who is a senior member
of the Nigerian government or a military officer currently in
the armed forces of Nigeria.

SEC. 7. WAIVER OF PROHIBITIONS AGAINST NIGERIA IF CERTAIN
REQUIREMENTS MET.

(a) In General.--The President may waive any of the
prohibitions contained in section 5 or 6 for any fiscal year
if the President makes a determination under subsection (b)
for that fiscal year and transmits a notification to Congress
of that determination under subsection (c).
(b) Presidential Determination Required.--A determination
under this subsection is a determination that--
(1) the Government of Nigeria--
(A) is not harassing or imprisoning human rights and
democracy advocates and individuals for expressing their
political views;
(B) has implemented the transition program announced in
July 1998;
(C) is respecting freedom of speech, assembly, and the
media, including cessation of harassment of journalists;
(D) has released the remaining individuals who have been
imprisoned without due process or for political reasons;
(E) is continuing to provide access for independent
international human rights monitors;
(F) has repealed all decrees and laws that--
(i) grant undue powers to the military;
(ii) suspend the constitutional protection of fundamental
human rights;
(iii) allow indefinite detention without charge, including
the State of Security (Detention of Persons) Decree No. 2 of
1984; or
(iv) create special tribunals that do not respect
international standards of due process; and
(G) has ensured that the policing of the oil producing
communities is carried out without excessive use of force or
systematic and widespread human rights violations against the
civilian population of the area; or
(2) it is in the national interests of the United States to
waive the prohibition in section 5 or 6, as the case may be.
(c) Congressional Notification.--Notification under this
subsection is written notification of the determination of
the President under subsection (b) provided to the
appropriate congressional committees not less than 15 days in
advance of any waiver of any prohibition in section 5 or 6,
subject to the procedures applicable to reprogramming
notifications under section 634A of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2394-1).

SEC. 8. REPORT ON CORRUPTION IN NIGERIA.

Not later than 3 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act, and annually for the next 5 years thereafter, the
Secretary of State shall prepare and submit to the
appropriate congressional committees, and make available to
the public, a report on corruption in Nigeria. This report
shall include--
(1) evidence of corruption by government officials in
Nigeria;
(2) the impact of corruption on the delivery of government
services in Nigeria;
(3) the impact of corruption on United States business
interests in Nigeria;
(4) the impact of advance fee fraud, and other fraudulent
business schemes originating in Nigeria, on United States
citizens; and
(5) the impact of corruption on Nigeria's foreign policy.

SEC. 9. APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.

Except as provided in section 6, in this Act, the term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
(1) the Committee on International Relations of the House
of Representatives;
(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
(3) the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate.

SEC. 10. TERMINATION DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall terminate on September 30,
2004.
______

By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
S. 227. A bill to prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds to
provide or support programs to provide individuals with hypodermic
needles or syringes for the use of illegal drugs; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT NEEDLE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am today introducing, along with
Senator Brownback and others, a bill to prohibit the use of federal
funds to carry out or support programs for the distribution of sterile
hypodermic needles or syringes to illegal drug users.
This bill would effectively continue and make permanent the one year
ban imposed through the appropriations process. Rather than revisit
this issue each year, this bill would establish a firm federal policy
against providing free needles to drug addicts. Health and Human
Services Secretary Donna Shalala is on record strongly endorsing needle
exchange programs and encouraging local communities to use their own
dollars to fund needle exchange programs. This legislation is therefore
needed to foreclose any temptation the Administration may feel to
federally fund needle exchanges in the future.
General Barry McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, has laid out the strong case against needle exchange
programs. Handing out needles to drug users sends a message that the
government is condoning drug use. It undermines our anti-drug message
and undercuts all of our drug prevention efforts.
A report by General McCaffrey's office reviewed the world's largest
needle exchange program in Vancouver, British Columbia, in operation
since 1988. It found the program to be a failure. HIV infections were
higher among users of free needles than those without access to them.
The death rate from drugs jumped from 18 a year in 1988 to 150 in 1992.
In addition, higher drug use followed implementation of the program.
Dr. James L. Curtis of New York, who has studied needle exchange
programs, was quoted in the Washington Times stating that the programs
``should be recognized as reckless experimentation on human beings, the
unproven hypothesis being that it prevents AIDS.''
According to recent scientific studies, eight persons a day are
infected with the HIV virus by using borrowed needles, while 352 people
start using heroin each day and 4,000 die every year from heroin-
related causes other than HIV. Far more addicts die of drug overdoses
and related violence than from AIDS. It is wrong to aid and abet those
deaths by handing out free needles to drug addicts. We should not be
encouraging higher rates of heroin use.
Therefore, I hope my colleagues will join me in making permanent the
prohibition on federal funding and support of needle giveaway programs.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 230. A bill to amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to
authorize the use of clinical social workers to conduct evaluations to
determine work-related emotional and mental illnesses; to the Committee
on Governmental Affairs.

clinical social workers' recognition act of 1999

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Clinical
Social Workers' Recognition Act of 1999 to correct an outstanding
problem in the Federal Employees Compensation Act. This bill will also
provide clinical social workers the recognition they deserve as
independent providers of quality mental health care services.
Clinical social workers are authorized to independently diagnose and
treat mental illnesses through public and private health insurance
plans across the Nation. However, Title V, United States Code, does not
permit the use of mental health evaluations conducted by clinical
social workers for use as evidence in determining workers' compensation
claims brought by Federal employees. The bill I am introducing corrects
this problem.
It is a sad irony that Federal employees may select a clinical social
worker through their health plans to provide mental health services,
but may not go to this professional for workers' compensation
evaluations. The failure to recognize the validity of evaluations
provided by clinical social workers unnecessarily limits Federal
employees' selection of a provider to conduct the workers' compensation
mental health evaluation and may well impose an undue burden on Federal
employees where clinical social workers are the only available
providers of mental health care.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.

[[Page 1012]]

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

S. 230

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 ``Clinical Social Workers'
Recognition Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. EXAMINATIONS BY CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS FOR FEDERAL
WORKER COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

Section 8101 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``and osteopathic
practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners,
and clinical social workers''; and
(2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and osteopathic
practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners,
and clinical social workers''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 232. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide improved reimbursement for clinical social worker services
under the medicare program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.

the clinical social worker act of 1999

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to correct discrepancies
in the reimbursement of clinical social workers covered through
Medicare, Part B. The three proposed changes contained in this
legislation clarify the current payment process for clinical social
workers and establish a reimbursement methodology for the profession
that is similar to other health care professionals reimbursed through
the Medicare program.
First, this legislation sets payment for clinical social worker
services according to a fee schedule established by the Secretary.
Second, it explicitly states that services and supplies furnished by a
clinical social worker are a covered Medicare expense, just as these
services are covered for other mental health professionals in Medicare.
Third, the bill allows clinical social workers to be reimbursed for
services provided to a client who is hospitalized.
Clinical social workers are valued members of our health care
provider team. They are legally regulated in every state of the Nation
and are recognized as independent providers of mental health care
throughout the health care system. I believe it is time to correct the
disparate reimbursement treatment of this profession under Medicare.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 232

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

SECTION 1. IMPROVED REIMBURSEMENT FOR CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER
SERVICES UNDER MEDICARE.

(a) In General.--Section 1833(a)(1)(F)(ii) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)(F)(ii)) is amended to
read as follows: ``(ii) the amount determined by a fee
schedule established by the Secretary,''.
(b) Definition of Clinical Social Worker Services
Expanded.--Section 1861(hh)(2) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395x(hh)(2)) is amended by striking ``services
performed by a clinical social worker (as defined in
paragraph (1))'' and inserting ``such services and such
services and supplies furnished as an incident to such
services performed by a clinical social worker (as defined in
paragraph (1))''.
(c) Clinical Social Worker Services Not To Be Included in
Inpatient Hospital Services.--Section 1861(b)(4) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(b)(4)) is amended by
striking ``and services'' and inserting ``clinical social
worker services, and services''.
(d) Treatment of Services Furnished in Inpatient Setting.--
Section 1832(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395k(a)(2)(B)(iii)) is amended by striking ``and
services'' and inserting ``clinical social worker services,
and services''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to payments made for clinical social worker
services furnished on or after January 1, 2000.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 233. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to
ensure that social work students of social work schools are eligible
for support under certain programs to assist individuals in pursuing
health careers and programs of grants for training projects in
geriatrics, and to establish a social work training program; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

amendment to title VII of the public health service act

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of our Nation's clinical social
workers, I am introducing legislation to amend the Public Health
Service Act. This legislation would (1) establish a new social work
training program; (2) ensure that social work students are eligible for
support under the Health Careers Opportunity Program; (3) provide
social work schools with eligibility for support under the Minority
Centers of Excellence programs; (4) permit schools offering degrees in
social work to obtain grants for training projects in geriatrics; and
(5) ensure that social work is recognized as a profession under the
Public Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Act.
Despite the impressive range of services social workers provide to
people of this Nation, particularly our elderly, disadvantaged and
minority populations, few federal programs exist to provide
opportunities for social work training in health and mental health
care. This legislation builds on the health professional legislation
enacted by the 102d Congress enabling schools of social work to apply
for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) training funding and
resources to establish collaborative relationships with rural health
care providers and schools of osteopathic medicine. This bill would
provide funding for traineeships and fellowships for individuals who
plan to specialize in, practice, or teach social work, or for operating
approved social work training programs; it would help disadvantaged
students earn graduate degrees in social work with a concentration in
health or mental health; it would provide new resources and
opportunities in social work training for minorities; and it would
encourage schools of social work to expand program in geriatrics.
Finally, the recognition of social work as a profession merely codifies
current social work practice and reflects modifications made by the
Medicare HMO legislation.
I believe it is important to ensure that the special expertise and
skill social workers possess continue to be available to the citizens
of this nation. This legislation, by providing financial assistance to
schools of social work and social work students, recognizes the long
history and critical importance of the services provided by social work
professionals. In addition, since social workers have provided quality
mental health services to our citizens for a long time and continue to
be at the forefront of establishing innovative programs to service our
disadvantaged populations, I believe it is time to provide them with
the recognition they clearly earned and deserve.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 233

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

SECTION 1. SOCIAL WORK STUDENTS.

(a) Health Professions School.--Section 736(g)(1)(A) of the
Public Health Service Act, as amended by Public Law 105-392,
is amended by striking ``graduate program in behavioral or
mental health'' and inserting ``graduate program in
behavioral or mental health including a school offering
graduate programs in clinical social work, or programs in
social work''.
(b) Scholarships, Generally.--Section 737(d)(1) of the
Public Health Service Act, as amended by Public Lae 105-392,
is amended by striking ``mental health practice'' and
inserting ``mental health practice including graduate
programs in clinical psychology, graduate programs in
clinical social work, or programs in social work''.
(c) Faculty Positions.--Section 738(a)(3) of the Public
Health Service Act, as amended by Public Law 105-392, is
amended by striking ``offering graduate programs in
behavioral and mental health'' and inserting ``offering
graduate programs in behavioral and mental health including
graduate programs in clinical psychology, graduate programs
in clinical social work, or programs in social work''.

[[Page 1013]]

SEC. 2. GERIATRICS TRAINING PROJECTS.

Section 753(b)(1) of the Public Health Service Act, as
amended by Public Law 105-392, is amended by inserting
``schools offering degrees in social work,'' after ``teaching
hospitals,''.

SEC. 3. SOCIAL WORK TRAINING PROGRAM.

Subpart 2 of part E of title VII of the Public Health
Service Act, as amended by Public Law 105-392, is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 770 as section 770A;
(2) by inserting after section 769, the following:

``SEC. 770. SOCIAL WORK TRAINING PROGRAM.

``(a) Training Generally.--The Secretary may make grants
to, or enter into contracts with, any public or nonprofit
private hospital, school offering programs in social work, or
to or with a public or private nonprofit entity (which the
Secretary has determined is capable of carrying out such
grant or contract)--
``(1) to plan, develop, and operate, or participate in, an
approved social work training program (including an approved
residency or internship program) for students, interns,
residents, or practicing physicians;
``(2) to provide financial assistance (in the form of
traineeships and fellowships) to students, interns,
residents, practicing physicians, or other individuals, who
are in need thereof, who are participants in any such
program, and who plan to specialize or work in the practice
of social work;
``(3) to plan, develop, and operate a program for the
training of individuals who plan to teach in social work
training programs; and
``(4) to provide financial assistance (in the form of
traineeships and fellowships) to individuals who are
participants in any such program and who plan to teach in a
social work training program.
``(b) Academic Administrative Units.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make grants to or
enter into contracts with schools offering programs in social
work to meet the costs of projects to establish, maintain, or
improve academic administrative units (which may be
departments, divisions, or other units) to provide clinical
instruction in social work.
``(2) Preference in making awards.--In making awards of
grants and contracts under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
give preference to any qualified applicant for such an award
that agrees to expend the award for the purpose of--
``(A) establishing an academic administrative unit for
programs in social work; or
``(B) substantially expanding the programs of such a unit.
``(c) Duration of Award.--The period during which payments
are made to an entity from an award of a grant or contract
under subsection (a) may not exceed 5 years. The provision of
such payments shall be subject to annual approval by the
Secretary of the payments and subject to the availability of
appropriations for the fiscal year involved to make the
payments.
``(d) Funding.--
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there is authorized to be
appropriated $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000
through 2002.
``(2) Allocation.--Of the amounts appropriated under
paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall make
available not less than 20 percent for awards of grants and
contracts under subsection (b).''; and
(3) in section 770A (as so redesignated) by inserting
``other than section 770,'' after ``carrying out this
subpart,''.

SEC. 4. CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER SERVICES.

Section 1302 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300e-1) is amended--
(1) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting ``clinical
social worker,'' after ``psychologist,'' each place it
appears;
(2) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``and psychologists''
and inserting ``psychologists, and clinical social workers'';
and
(3) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``clinical social
work,'' after ``psychology,''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 234. A bill to recognize the organization known as the National
Academies of Practice; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF PRACTICE RECOGNITION ACT OF 1999

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
would provide a federal charter for the National Academies of Practice.
This organization represents outstanding medical professionals who have
made significant contributions to the practice of applied psychology,
medicine, dentistry, nursing, optometry, podiatry, social work, and
veterinary medicine. When fully established, each of the nine academies
will possess 100 distinguished practitioners selected by their peers.
This umbrella organization will be able to provide the Congress of the
United States and the executive branch with considerable health policy
expertise, especially from the perspective of those individuals who are
in the forefront of actually providing health care.
As we continue to grapple with the many complex issues surrounding
the delivery of health care services, it is clearly in our best
interest to ensure that the Congress has systematic access to the
recommendations of an interdisciplinary body of health care
practitioners.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 234

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

SECTION 1. CHARTER.

The National Academies of Practice organized and
incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia, is
hereby recognized as such and is granted a Federal charter.

SEC. 2. CORPORATE POWERS.

The National Academies of Practice (referred to in this Act
as the ``corporation'') shall have only those powers granted
to it through its bylaws and articles of incorporation filed
in the State in which it is incorporated and subject to the
laws of such State.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES OF CORPORATION.

The purposes of the corporation shall be to honor persons
who have made significant contributions to the practice of
applied psychology, dentistry, medicine, nursing, optometry,
osteopathy, podiatry, social work, veterinary medicine, and
other health care professions, and to improve the practices
in such professions by disseminating information about new
techniques and procedures.

SEC. 4. SERVICE OF PROCESS.

With respect to service of process, the corporation shall
comply with the laws of the State in which it is incorporated
and those States in which it carries on its activities in
furtherance of its corporate purposes.

SEC. 5. MEMBERSHIP.

Eligibility for membership in the corporation and the
rights and privileges of members shall be as provided in the
bylaws of the corporation.

SEC. 6. BOARD OF DIRECTORS; COMPOSITION; RESPONSIBILITIES.

The composition and the responsibilities of the board of
directors of the corporation shall be as provided in the
articles of incorporation of the corporation and in
conformity with the laws of the State in which it is
incorporated.

SEC. 7. OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION.

The officers of the corporation and the election of such
officers shall be as provided in the articles of
incorporation of the corporation and in conformity with the
laws of the State in which it is incorporated.

SEC. 8. RESTRICTIONS.

(a) Use of Income and Assets.--No part of the income or
assets of the corporation shall inure to any member, officer,
or director of the corporation or be distributed to any such
person during the life of this charter. Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to prevent the payment of
reasonable compensation to the officers of the corporation or
reimbursement for actual necessary expenses in amounts
approved by the board of directors.
(b) Loans.--The corporation shall not make any loan to any
officer, director, or employee of the corporation.
(c) Political Activity.--The corporation, any officer, or
any director of the corporation, acting as such officer or
director, shall not contribute to, support, or otherwise
participate in any political activity or in any manner
attempt to influence legislation.
(d) Issuance of Stock and Payment of Dividends.--The
corporation shall have no power to issue any shares of stock
nor to declare or pay any dividends.
(e) Claims of Federal Approval.--The corporation shall not
claim congressional approval or Federal Government authority
for any of its activities.

SEC. 9. LIABILITY.

The corporation shall be liable for the acts of its
officers and agents when acting within the scope of their
authority.

SEC. 10. MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS.

(a) Books and Records of Account.--The corporation shall
keep correct and complete books and records of account and
shall keep minutes of any proceeding of the corporation
involving any of its members, the board of directors, or any
committee having authority under the board of directors.
(b) Names and Addresses of Members.--The corporation shall
keep at its principal office a record of the names and
addresses of all members having the right to vote in any
proceeding of the corporation.
(c) Right To Inspect Books and Records.--All books and
records of the corporation may be inspected by any member
having the right to vote, or by any agent or attorney of such
member, for any proper purpose, at any reasonable time.

[[Page 1014]]

(d) Application of State Law.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to contravene any applicable State law.

SEC. 11. ANNUAL REPORT.

The corporation shall report annually to the Congress
concerning the activities of the corporation during the
preceding fiscal year. Such annual report shall be submitted
at the same time as is the report of the audit for such
fiscal year required by section 3 of the Act referred to in
section 11 of this Act. The report shall not be printed as a
public document.

SEC. 12. RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO AMEND OR REPEAL CHARTER.

The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is expressly
reserved to the Congress.

SEC. 13. DEFINITION.

In this Act, the term ``State'' includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the
territories and possessions of the United States.

SEC. 14. TAX-EXEMPT STATUS.

The corporation shall maintain its status as an
organization exempt from taxation as provided in the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 or any corresponding similar provision.

SEC. 15. TERMINATION.

If the corporation fails to comply with any of the
restrictions or provisions of this Act the charter granted by
this Act shall terminate.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 235. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to
make certain graduate programs in professional psychology eligible to
participate in various health professions loan programs; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

The U.S. Public Health Service Act Amendment Act of 1999

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today to
modify Title VII of the U.S. Public Health Service Act in order to
provide students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with the
opportunity to participate in various health professions loan programs
Providing students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with
eligibility for financial assistance in the form of loans, loan
guarantees, and scholarships will facilitate a much needed infusion of
behavioral science expertise into our public health community of
providers. There is a growing recognition of the valuable contribution
that is being made by our nation's psychologists toward solving some of
our nation's most distressing problems.
The participation of students from all backgrounds and clinical
disciplines is vital to the success of health care training. The Title
VII programs play a significant role in providing financial support for
the recruitment of minorities, women and individuals from economically
disadvantaged backgrounds. Minority therapists have an advantage in the
provision of critical services to minority populations because often
they can communicate with clients in their own language and cultural
framework. Minority therapists are more likely to work in community
settings, where ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged
individuals are most likely to seek care. It is critical that continued
support be provided for the training of individuals who provide health
care services to underserved communities.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 235

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

SECTION 1. PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS HEALTH PROFESSIONS LOAN
PROGRAMS.

(a) Loan Agreements.--Section 721 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292q) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or any public or
nonprofit school that offers a graduate program in
professional psychology'' after ``veterinary medicine'';
(2) in subsection (b)(4), by inserting ``, or to a graduate
degree in professional psychology'' after ``or doctor of
veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree''; and
(3) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``, or schools that
offer graduate programs in professional psychology'' after
``veterinary medicine''.
(b) Loan Provisions.--Section 722 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292r) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``, or to a graduate
degree in professional psychology'' after ``or doctor of
veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree'';
(2) in subsection (c), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by inserting ``, or at a school that offers a graduate
program in professional psychology'' after ``veterinary
medicine''; and
(3) in subsection (k)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``or
podiatry'' and inserting ``podiatry, or professional
psychology''; and
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or podiatric medicine''
and inserting ``podiatric medicine, or professional
psychology''.

SEC. 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

(a) Health Professions Data.--Section 792(a) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295k(a)) is amended by striking
``clinical'' and inserting ``professional''.
(b) Prohibition Against Discrimination on Basis of Sex.--
Section 794 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295m)
is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking
``clinical'' and inserting ``professional''.
(c) Definitions.--Section 799B(1)(B) of the Public Health
Service Act (as redesignated by section 106(a)(2)(E) of the
Health Professions Education Partnerships Act of 1998) is
amended by striking ``clinical'' each place it appears and
inserting ``professional''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 236. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to
establish a psychology post-doctoral fellowship program, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

the public health service act of 1999

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to
amend Title VII of the Public Health Service Act to establish a
psychology post-doctoral program.
Psychologists have made a unique contribution in serving the nation's
medically underserved populations. Expertise in behavioral science is
useful in addressing many of our most distressing concerns such as
violence, addiction, mental illness, adolescent and child behavioral
disorders, and family disruption. Establishment of a psychology post-
doctoral program could be most effective in finding solutions to these
pressing societal issues.
Similar programs supporting additional, specialized training in
traditionally underserved settings or with underserved populations have
been demonstrated to be successful in providing services to those same
underserved during the years following the training experience. For
example, mental health professional who have participated in these
specialized federally funded programs have tended not only to meet
their pay back obligations, but have continued to work in the public
sector or with the underserved populations with whom they have been
trained to work.
While the doctorate in psychology provides broad based knowledge and
mastery in a wide variety of clinical skills, the specialized post-
doctoral fellowship programs develop particular diagnostic and
treatment skills required to effectively respond to these underserved
populations. For example, what looks like severe depression in an
elderly person might actually be withdrawal related to hearing loss, or
what appears to be poor academic motivation in a child recently
relocated from Southeast Asia might be reflective of a cultural value
of reserve rather than a disinterest in academic learning. Each of
these situations requires very different interventions, of course, and
specialized assessment skills.
Domestic violence is not just a problem for the criminal justice
system, it is a significant public health problem. A single aspect of
this issue, domestic violence against women, results in almost 100,000
days of hospitalization, 30,000 emergency room visits and 40,000 visits
to physicians each year. Rates of child and spouse abuse in rural areas
are particularly high as are the rates of alcohol abuse and depression
in adolescents. A post-doctoral fellowship program in psychology of the
rural populations could be of special benefit in addressing the
problems.
Given the changing demographics of the nation--the increasing life
span and numbers of the elderly, the rising percentage of minority
populations within the country, as well as an increased recognition of
the long-term sequelae of violence and abuse--and given the
demonstrated success and effectiveness of these kinds of specialized
training programs, it is incumbent

[[Page 1015]]

upon us to encourage participation in post-doctoral fellowships that
respond to the needs of the nation's underserved.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 236

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

SECTION 1. GRANTS FOR FELLOWSHIPS IN PSYCHOLOGY.

Part E of title VII of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 294o et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 779. GRANTS FOR FELLOWSHIPS IN PSYCHOLOGY.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a
psychology post-doctoral fellowship program to make grants to
and enter into contracts with eligible entities to encourage
the provision of psychological training and services in
underserved treatment areas.
``(b) Eligible Entities.--
``(1) Individuals.--In order to receive a grant under this
section an individual shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such form, and containing such
information as the Secretary shall require, including a
certification that such individual--
``(A) has received a doctoral degree through a graduate
program in psychology provided by an accredited institution
at the time such grant is awarded;
``(B) will provide services in a medically underserved
population during the period of such grant;
``(C) will comply with the provisions of subsection (c);
and
``(D) will provide any other information or assurances as
the Secretary determines appropriate.
``(2) Institutions.--In order to receive a grant or
contract under this section, an institution shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time, in such form, and
containing such information as the Secretary shall require,
including a certification that such institution--
``(A) is an entity, approved by the State, that provides
psychological services in medically underserved areas or to
medically underserved populations (including entities that
care for the mentally retarded, mental health institutions,
and prisons);
``(B) will use amounts provided to such institution under
this section to provide financial assistance in the form of
fellowships to qualified individuals who meet the
requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph
(1);
``(C) will not use in excess of 10 percent of amounts
provided under this section to pay for the administrative
costs of any fellowship programs established with such funds;
and
``(D) will provide any other information or assurance as
the Secretary determines appropriate.
``(c) Continued Provision of Services.--Any individual who
receives a grant or fellowship under this section shall
certify to the Secretary that such individual will continue
to provide the type of services for which such grant or
fellowship is awarded for at least 1 year after the term of
the grant or fellowship has expired.
``(d) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate
regulations necessary to carry out this section, including
regulations that define the terms `medically underserved
areas' or `medically unserved populations'.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section,
$5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2002.''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 237. A bill to allow the psychiatric or psychological examinations
required under chapter 313 of title 18, United States Code, relating to
offenders with mental disease or defect, to be conducted by a clinical
social worker; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

the psychiatric and psychological examinations act of 1999

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend
Title 18 of the United States Code to allow our nation's clinical
social workers to provide their mental health expertise to the federal
judiciary.
I feel that the time has come to allow our nation's judicial system
to have access to a wide range of behavioral science and mental health
expertise. I am confident that the enactment of this legislation would
be very much in our nation's best interest.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 237

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

SECTION 1. EXAMINATIONS BY CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS.

Section 4247(b) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended, in the first sentence, by striking ``psychiatrist or
psychologist'' and inserting ``psychiatrist, psychologist, or
clinical social worker''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 238. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the
grade provided for the heads of the nurse corps of the Armed Forces; to
the Committee on Armed Services.

U.S. Military Chief Nurse Corps Amendment Act of 1999

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce an amendment that would
change the existing law regarding the designated position and grade for
the Chief Nurses of the United States Army, the United States Navy, and
the United States Air Force. Currently, the Chief Nurses of the three
branches of the military are one-star general officer grades; this law
would change the current grade to Major General in the Army and Air
Force and Rear Admiral (upper half) in the Navy.
Our military Chief Nurses have an awesome responsibility--their scope
of duties include peacetime and wartime health care doctrine, standards
and policy for all nursing personnel within their respective branches.
They are responsible for 80,000 Army, 5,200 Navy, and 20,000 Air Force
officer and enlisted nursing personnel in the active, reserve and guard
components of the military. This level of responsibility certainly
supports the need to change the grade for the Chief Nurses which would
ensure that they have an appropriate voice in Defense Health Program
executive management.
Organizations are best served when the leadership is composed of a
mix of specialties--of equal rank--who bring their unique talents to
the policy setting and decision-making process. I believe it is time to
ensure that military health care organizations utilize the expertise
and unique contributions of the military Chief Nurses.
Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the text of this bill
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 238

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

SECTION 1. INCREASED GRADE FOR HEADS OF NURSE CORPS.

(a) Army.--Section 3069(b) of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by striking out ``brigadier general'' in the
second sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ``major
general''.
(b) Navy.--The first sentence of section 5150(c) of such
title is amended--
(1) by inserting ``rear admiral (upper half) in the case of
an officer in the Nurse Corps or'' after ``for promotion to
the grade of''; and
(2) by inserting ``in the case of an officer in the Medical
Service Corps'' after ``rear admiral (lower half)''.
(c) Air Force.--Section 8069(b) of such title is amended by
striking out ``brigadier general'' in the second sentence and
inserting in lieu thereof ``major general''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 239. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to revise
certain provisions relating to the appointment of professional
psychologists in the Veterans' Health Administration, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

the perkins county rural water system act of 1999

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce legislation
to authorize a critically important rural water system in South Dakota,
the ``Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1999.'' I am pleased to
have my good friend and colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle,
as an original cosponsor of this important legislation, which we
introduced during the 105th. This legislation is also strongly
supported by the State of South Dakota and local project sponsors, who
have demonstrated that support by

[[Page 1016]]

agreeing to substantial financial contributions from the local level.
During the 105th Congress the Perkins County Rural Water System Act
was passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as
well as the full Senate. Unfortunately, this legislation was caught up
in part of a larger legislative package, but I am hopeful the Senate
will again support this important drinking water project and pass this
legislation early this year.
Like many parts of South Dakota, Perkins County has insufficient
water supplies of reasonable quality available, and the water supplies
that are available do not meet the minimum health and safety standards,
thereby posing a threat to public health and safety.
In addition to improving the health of residents in the region, I
strongly believe that this rural drinking water delivery project will
help to stabilize the rural economy as well. Water is a basic commodity
and is essential if we are to foster rural development in many parts of
rural South Dakota, including the Perkins County area.
The ``Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1999'' authorizes the
Bureau of Reclamation to construct a Perkins County Rural Water System
providing service to approximately 2,500 people, including the
communities of Lemmon and Bison, as well as rural residents. The
Perkins County Rural Water System is located in northwestern South
Dakota along the South Dakota/North Dakota border and it will be an
extension of an existing rural water system in North Dakota, the
Southwest Pipeline Project. The State of South Dakota has worked
closely with the State of North Dakota over the years on the Perkins
County connection to the Southwest Pipeline Project. A feasibility
study completed in 1994 looked at several alternatives for a dependable
water supply, and the connection to the Southwest Pipeline Project is
clearly the most feasible for the Perkins County area.
Mr. President, South Dakota is plagued by water of exceeding poor
quality, and the Perkins County rural water project is an effort to
help provide clean water--a commodity most of us take for granted--to
the people of Perkins County, South Dakota. I am a strong believer in
the federal government's role in rural water delivery, and I hope to
continue to advance that agenda both in South Dakota and around the
country. I urge my colleagues to support this important rural water
legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move forward on
enactment as quickly as possible.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 239

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 ``Perkins County Rural Water
System Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) there are insufficient water supplies of reasonable
quality available to the members of the Perkins County Rural
Water System located in Perkins County, South Dakota, and the
water supplies that are available do not meet minimum health
and safety standards, thereby posing a threat to public
health and safety;
(2) in 1977, the North Dakota State Legislature authorized
and directed the State Water Commission to conduct the
Southwest Area Water Supply Study, which included water
service to a portion of Perkins County, South Dakota;
(3) amendments made by the Garrison Diversion Unit
Reformulation Act of 1986 (Public Law 101-294) authorized the
Southwest Pipeline project as an eligible project for Federal
cost share participation;
(4) the Perkins County Rural Water System has continued to
be recognized by the State of North Dakota, the Southwest
Water Authority, the North Dakota Water Commission, the
Department of the Interior, and Congress as a component of
the Southwest Pipeline Project; and
(5) the best available, reliable, and safe rural and
municipal water supply to serve the needs of the Perkins
County Rural Water System, Inc., members is the waters of the
Missouri River as delivered by the Southwest Pipeline Project
in North Dakota.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to ensure a safe and adequate municipal, rural, and
industrial water supply for the members of the Perkins County
Rural Water Supply System, Inc., in Perkins County, South
Dakota;
(2) to assist the members of the Perkins County Rural Water
Supply System, Inc., in developing safe and adequate
municipal, rural, and industrial water supplies; and
(3) to promote the implementation of water conservation
programs by the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Feasibility study.--The term ``feasibility study''
means the study entitled ``Feasibility Study for Rural Water
System for Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.'', as
amended in March 1995.
(2) Project construction budget.--The term ``project
construction budget'' means the description of the total
amount of funds that are needed for the construction of the
water supply system, as described in the feasibility study.
(3) Pumping and incidental operational requirements.--The
term ``pumping and incidental operational requirements''
means all power requirements that are incidental to the
operation of intake facilities, pumping stations, water
treatment facilities, cooling facilities, reservoirs, and
pipelines to the point of delivery of water by the Perkins
County Rural Water System to each entity that distributes
water at retail to individual users.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation.
(5) Water supply system.--The term ``water supply system''
means the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., a
nonprofit corporation, established and operated substantially
in accordance with the feasibility study.

SEC. 4. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make grants to the
water supply system for the Federal share of the costs of--
(1) the planning and construction of the water supply
system; and
(2) repairs to existing public water distribution systems
to ensure conservation of the resources and to make the
systems functional under the new water supply system.
(b) Service Area.--The water supply system shall provide
for safe and adequate municipal, rural, and industrial water
supplies, mitigation of wetlands areas, repairs to existing
public water distribution systems, and water conservation in
Perkins County, South Dakota.
(c) Amount of Grants.--Grants made available under
subsection (a) to the water supply system shall not exceed
the Federal share under section 10.
(d) Limitation on Availability of Construction Funds.--The
Secretary shall not obligate funds for the construction of
the water supply system until--
(1) the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) are met with respect to
the water supply system; and
(2) a final engineering report and a plan for a water
conservation program have been prepared and submitted to
Congress for a period of not less than 90 days before the
commencement of construction of the system.

SEC. 5. MITIGATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

Mitigation of fish and wildlife losses incurred as a result
of the construction and operation of the water supply system
shall be on an acre-for-acre basis, based on ecological
equivalency, concurrent with project construction, as
provided in the feasibility study.

SEC. 6. USE OF PICK-SLOAN POWER.

(a) In General.--From power designated for future
irrigation and drainage pumping for the Pick-Sloan Missouri
River Basin Program, the Western Area Power Administration
shall make available the capacity and energy required to meet
the pumping and incidental operational requirements of the
water supply system during the period beginning May 1 and
ending October 31 of each year.
(b) Conditions.--The capacity and energy described in
subsection (a) shall be made available on the following
conditions:
(1) The water supply system shall be operated on a not-for-
profit basis.
(2) The water supply system shall contract to purchase its
entire electric service requirements, including the capacity
and energy made available under subsection (a), from a
qualified preference power supplier that itself purchases
power from the Western Area Power Administration.
(3) The rate schedule applicable to the capacity and energy
made available under subsection (a) shall be the firm power
rate schedule of the Pick-Sloan Eastern Division of the
Western Area Power Administration in effect when the power is
delivered by the Administration.
(4) It shall be agreed by contract among--
(A) the Western Area Power Administration;

[[Page 1017]]

(B) the power supplier with which the water supply system
contracts under paragraph (2);
(C) the power supplier of the entity described in
subparagraph (B); and
(D) the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.;

that in the case of the capacity and energy made available
under subsection (a), the benefit of the rate schedule
described in paragraph (3) shall be passed through to the
water supply system, except that the power supplier of the
water supply system shall not be precluded from including, in
the charges of the supplier to the water system for the
electric service, the other usual and customary charges of
the supplier.

SEC. 7. NO LIMITATION ON WATER PROJECTS IN STATES.

This Act does not limit the authorization for water
projects in South Dakota and North Dakota under law in effect
on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 8. WATER RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act--
(1) invalidates or preempts State water law or an
interstate compact governing water;
(2) alters the rights of any State to any appropriated
share of the waters of any body of surface or ground water,
whether determined by past or future interstate compacts or
by past or future legislative or final judicial allocations;
(3) preempts or modifies any Federal or State law, or
interstate compact, dealing with water quality or disposal;
or
(4) confers on any non-Federal entity the ability to
exercise any Federal right to the waters of any stream or to
any ground water resource.

SEC. 9. FEDERAL SHARE.

The Federal share under section 4 shall be 75 percent of--
(1) the amount allocated in the total project construction
budget for the planning and construction of the water supply
system under section 4; and
(2) such sums as are necessary to defray increases in
development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost
indices after March 1, 1995.

SEC. 10. NON-FEDERAL SHARE.

The non-Federal share under section 4 shall be 25 percent
of--
(1) the amount allocated in the total project construction
budget for the planning and construction of the water supply
system under section 4; and
(2) such sums as are necessary to defray increases in
development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost
indices after March 1, 1995.

SEC. 11. CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT.

(a) Authorization.--The Secretary may provide construction
oversight to the water supply system for areas of the water
supply system.
(b) Project Oversight Administration.--The amount of funds
used by the Secretary for planning and construction of the
water supply system may not exceed an amount equal to 3
percent of the amount provided in the total project
construction budget for the portion of the project to be
constructed in Perkins County, South Dakota.

SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated--
(1) $15,000,000 for the planning and construction of the
water system under section 4; and
(2) such sums as are necessary to defray increases in
development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost
indices after March 1, 1995.
______

the veterans' health administration act of 1999

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to amend
Chapter 74 of Title 38, United States Code, to revise certain
provisions relating to the appointment of clinical and professional
psychologists in the Veterans' Health Administration (VHA).
The VHA has a long history of maintaining a staff of the very best
health care professionals to provide care to those men and women who
have served our country in the Armed Forces.
Recently, a quite distressing situation regarding the care of our
veterans has come to my attention. In particular, the recruiting and
retention of psychologists in the VHA of the Department of Veterans'
Affairs has become a significant problem.
The Congress has recognized the important contribution of the
behavioral sciences in the treatment of several conditions afflicting a
significant portion of our veterans. Programs related to homelessness,
substance abuse, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have
received funding from the Congress in recent years.
Certainly, psychologists, as behavioral science experts, are
essential to the successful implementation of these programs. However,
the high vacancy and turnover rates for psychologists in the VHA (more
than 5% and 8% respectively as reported in one recent survey) might
seriously jeopardize these programs and will negatively impact overall
patient care in the VHA.
Recruitment of psychologists by the VHA is hindered by a number of
factors including a pay scale not commensurate with private sector
rates and the low number of clinical and professional psychologists
appearing on the register of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Most new hires have no post-doctoral experience and are hired
immediately after a VHA internship. Recruitment, when successful, takes
up to six months or more.
Retention of psychologists in the VHA system poses an even more
significant problem. I have been informed that almost 40% of VHA
psychologists have five years or less of post-doctoral experience.
Psychologists leave the VHA system after five years because they have
almost reached peak levels for salary and professional advancement.
Furthermore, under the present system psychologists cannot be
recognized nor appropriately compensated for excellence or for taking
on additional responsibilities such as running treatment programs.
In effect, the current system for hiring psychologists in the VHA
supports mediocrity, not excellence and mastery. Our veterans with
behavioral and mental health disorders are deserving of better
psychological care from more experienced professionals than they are
currently receiving.
Currently, psychologists are the only doctoral level health care
providers in the VHA who are not included in Title 38. This is without
question a significant factor in the recruitment and retention
difficulties which I have addressed. Title 38 appointment authority for
psychologists would help ameliorate the recruitment and retention
problems. The length of time to recruit psychologists could be
abbreviated by eliminating the requirement for applicants to be rated
by the Office of Personnel Management. This would also encourage the
recruitment of applicants who are not recent VHA interns by reducing
the amount of time between identifying a desirable applicant and being
able to offer that applicant a position.
It is expected that problems in retention will be greatly alleviated
with the implementation of a Title 38 system that offers financial
incentives for psychologists to pursue professional development.
Achievements that would merit salary increases include such activities
as assuming supervisory responsibilities for clinical programs,
implementing innovative clinical treatments that improve the
effectiveness and/or efficiency of patient care, making significant
contributions to the science of psychology, earning the ABPP displomate
state, and becoming a Fellow of the American Psychological Association.
The conversion of psychologists to Title 38, as proposed by this
amendment, would provide relief for the retention and recruitment
issues and enhance the quality of care for our Nation's veterans and
their families.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 239

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

SECTION 1. REVISION OF AUTHORITY RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF
PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGISTS IN THE VETERANS'
HEALTH ADMINISTRATION.

(a) In General.--Section 7401(3) of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by striking out ``who hold diplomas as
diplomates in psychology from an accrediting authority
approved by the Secretary''.
(b) Certain Other Appointments.--Section 7405(a) of such
title is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking out ``Certified or''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``Professional psychologists,
certified or''; and

[[Page 1018]]

(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking out ``Certified or''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``Professional psychologists,
certified or''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(d) Appointment Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs shall
begin to make appointments of professional psychologists in
the Veterans' Health Administration under section 7401(3) of
title 38, United States Code (as amended by subsection (a)),
not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
______

By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Grams, Mr. Wellstone, Mr.
Grassley, and Mr. Harkin):

S. 244. A bill to authorize the construction of the Lewis and Clark
Rural Water System and to authorize assistance to the Lewis and Clark
Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for the planning and
construction of the water supply system, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

THE LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM ACT OF 1999

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today, I am proud to be introducing
legislation, along with my colleagues, the Minority Leader Senator
Daschle of South Dakota, Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley of Iowa,
and Senator Wellstone and Senator Grams of Minnesota, to authorize the
Lewis and Clark Rural Water System. We introduced similar legislation
last Congress, and I am pleased with the progress we made in the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Committee held a hearing
and passed the legislation during the 105th Congress, and I look
forward to again working closely with my colleagues for timely
consideration of this important measure.
The Lewis and Clark Rural Water system is made up of 22 rural water
systems and communities in southeastern South Dakota, northwestern Iowa
and southwestern Minnesota who have joined together in an effort to
cooperatively address the dual problems facing the delivery of drinking
water in this region--inadequate quantities of water and poor quality
water.
The region has seen substantial growth and development in recent
years, and studies have shown that future water needs will be
significantly greater than the current available supply. Most of the
people who are served by ten of the water utilities in the proposed
Lewis and Clark project area currently enforce water restrictions on a
seasonal basis. Almost half of the membership has water of such poor
quality it does not meet present or proposed standards for drinking
water. More than two-thirds rely on shallow aquifers as their primary
source of drinking water, aquifers which are very vulnerable to
contamination by surface activities.
The Lewis and Clark system will be a supplemental supply of drinking
water for its 22 members, acting as a treated, bulk delivery system.
The distribution to deliver water to individual users will continue
through the existing systems used by each member utility. This
``regionalization approach'' to solving these water supply and quality
problems enables the Missouri River to provide a source of clean, safe
drinking water to more than 180,000 individuals. A source of water
which none of the members of Lewis and Clark could afford on their own.
The proposed system would help to stabilize the regional rural
economy by providing water to Sioux Falls, the hub city in the region,
as well as numerous small communities and individual farms in South
Dakota and portions of Iowa and Minnesota.
The States of South Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota have all authorized
the project and local sponsors have demonstrated a financial commitment
to this project through state grants, local water development district
grants and membership dues. The State of South Dakota has already
contributed more than $400,000.
Mr. President, I do not believe our needs get any more basic than
good quality, reliable drinking water, and I appreciate the fact that
Congress has shown support for efforts to improve drinking water
supplies in South Dakota. I look forward to continue working with my
colleagues to have that support extended to the Lewis and Clark Rural
Water System
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 244

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 ``Lewis and Clark Rural Water
System Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Environmental enhancement.--The term ``environmental
enhancement'' means the wetland and wildlife enhancement
activities that are carried out substantially in accordance
with the environmental enhancement component of the
feasibility study.
(2) Environmental enhancement component.--The term
``environmental enhancement component'' means the component
described in the report entitled ``Wetlands and Wildlife
Enhancement for the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System'',
dated April 1991, that is included in the feasibility study.
(3) Feasibility study.--The term ``feasibility study''
means the study entitled ``Feasibility Level Evaluation of a
Missouri River Regional Water Supply for South Dakota, Iowa
and Minnesota'', dated September 1993, that includes a water
conservation plan, environmental report, and environmental
enhancement component.
(4) Member entity.--The term ``member entity'' means a
rural water system or municipality that signed a Letter of
Commitment to participate in the water supply system.
(5) Project construction budget.--The term ``project
construction budget'' means the description of the total
amount of funds needed for the construction of the water
supply system, as contained in the feasibility study.
(6) Pumping and incidental operational requirements.--The
term ``pumping and incidental operational requirements''
means all power requirements that are incidental to the
operation of intake facilities, pumping stations, water
treatment facilities, reservoirs, and pipelines up to the
point of delivery of water by the water supply system to each
member entity that distributes water at retail to individual
users.
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(8) Water supply system.--The term ``water supply system''
means the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a
nonprofit corporation established and operated substantially
in accordance with the feasibility study.

SEC. 3. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make grants to the
water supply system for the planning and construction of the
water supply system.
(b) Service Area.--The water supply system shall provide
for safe and adequate municipal, rural, and industrial water
supplies, environmental enhancement, mitigation of wetland
areas, and water conservation in--
(1) Lake County, McCook County, Minnehaha County, Turner
County, Lincoln County, Clay County, and Union County, in
southeastern South Dakota;
(2) Rock County and Nobles County, in southwestern
Minnesota; and
(3) Lyon County, Sioux County, Osceola County, O'Brien
County, Dickinson County, and Clay County, in northwestern
Iowa.
(c) Amount of Grants.--Grants made available under
subsection (a) to the water supply system shall not exceed
the amount of funds authorized under section 10.
(d) Limitation on Availability of Construction Funds.--The
Secretary shall not obligate funds for the construction of
the water supply system until--
(1) the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) are met;
(2) a final engineering report is prepared and submitted to
Congress not less than 90 days before the commencement of
construction of the water supply system; and
(3) a water conservation program is developed and
implemented.

SEC. 4. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT
COMPONENT.

(a) Initial Development.--The Secretary shall make grants
and other funds available to the water supply system and
other private, State, and Federal entities, for the initial
development of the environmental enhancement component.
(b) Nonreimbursement.--Funds provided under subsection (a)
shall be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable.

SEC. 5. WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The water supply system shall establish a
water conservation program

[[Page 1019]]

that ensures that users of water from the water supply system
use the best practicable technology and management techniques
to conserve water use.
(b) Requirements.--The water conservation programs shall
include--
(1) low consumption performance standards for all newly
installed plumbing fixtures;
(2) leak detection and repair programs;
(3) rate schedules that do not include declining block rate
schedules for municipal households and special water users
(as defined in the feasibility study);
(4) public education programs and technical assistance to
member entities; and
(5) coordinated operation among each rural water system,
and each water supply facility in existence on the date of
enactment of this Act, in the service area of the system.
(c) Review and Revision.--The programs described in
subsection (b) shall contain provisions for periodic review
and revision, in cooperation with the Secretary.

SEC. 6. MITIGATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses incurred as a
result of the construction and operation of the water supply
system shall be on an acre-for-acre basis, based on
ecological equivalency, concurrent with project construction,
as provided in the feasibility study.

SEC. 7. USE OF PICK-SLOAN POWER.

(a) In General.--From power designated for future
irrigation and drainage pumping for the Pick-Sloan Missouri
Basin program, the Western Area Power Administration shall
make available the capacity and energy required to meet the
pumping and incidental operational requirements of the water
supply system during the period beginning on May 1 and ending
on October 31 of each year.
(b) Conditions.--The capacity and energy described in
subsection (a) shall be made available on the following
conditions:
(1) The water supply system shall be operated on a not-for-
profit basis.
(2) The water supply system shall contract to purchase the
entire electric service requirements of the system, including
the capacity and energy made available under subsection (a),
from a qualified preference power supplier that itself
purchases power from the Western Area Power Administration.
(3) The rate schedule applicable to the capacity and energy
made available under subsection (a) shall be the firm power
rate schedule of the Pick-Sloan Eastern Division of the
Western Area Power Administration in effect when the power is
delivered by the Administration.
(4) It is agreed by contract among--
(A) the Western Area Power Administration;
(B) the power supplier with which the water supply system
contracts under paragraph (2);
(C) the power supplier of the entity described in
subparagraph (B); and
(D) the water supply system;

SEC. 8. NO LIMITATION ON WATER PROJECTS IN STATES.

This Act does not limit the authorization for water
projects in the States of South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota
under law in effect on or after the ate of enactment of this
Act.

SEC. 9. WATER RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act--
(1) invalidates or preempts State water law or an
interstate compact governing water;
(2) alters the rights of any State to any appropriated
share of the waters of any body of surface or ground water,
whether determined by past or future interstate compacts or
by past or future legislative or final judicial allocations;
(3) preempts or modifies any Federal or State law, or
interstate compact, governing water quality or disposal; or
(4) confers on any non-Federal entity the ability to
exercise any Federal right to the waters of any stream or to
any ground water resource.

SEC. 10. COST SHARING.

(a) Federal Cost Share.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall provide funds equal to 80 percent of--
(A) the amount allocated in the total project construction
budget for planning and construction of the water supply
system under section 3;
(B) such amounts as are necessary to defray increases in
the budget for planning and construction of the water supply
system under section 3; and
(C) such amounts as are necessary to defray increases in
development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost
indices after September 1, 1993.
(2) Sioux falls.--The Secretary shall provide funds for the
city of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in an amount equal to 50
percent of the incremental cost to the city of participation
in the project.
(b) Non-Federal Cost Share.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
non-Federal share of the costs allocated to the water supply
system shall be 20 percent of the amounts described in
subsection (a)(1).
(2) Sioux falls.--The non-Federal cost-share for the city
of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, shall be 50 percent of the
incremental cost to the city of participation in the project.

SEC. 11. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION.

(a) Authorization.--The Secretary may allow the Director of
the Bureau of Reclamation to provide project construction
oversight to the water supply system and environmental
enhancement component for the service area of the water
supply system described in section 3(b).
(b) Project Oversight Administration.--The amount of funds
used by the Director of the Bureau of Reclamation for
planning and construction of the water supply system shall
not exceed the amount that is equal to 1 percent of the
amount provided in the total project construction budget for
the entire project construction period.

SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $226,320,000, of which not less than $8,487,000 shall be
used for the initial development of the environmental
enhancement component under section 4, to remain available
until expended.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues for the
introduction of the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System Act of 1999. I
would like to thank Senator Johnson and Senator Daschle for their hard
work and dedication to this project over the past two Congresses.
Mr. President, the Southwestern corner of Minnesota, along with
adjoining areas in South Dakota and Iowa, is now served by a wholly
inadequate water system which is highly susceptible to drought, leading
most of the communities in this region to impose severe water
restrictions.
The situation has forced communities throughout the region to explore
aggressively alternative water supplies. Communities such as Luverne
and Worthington, both in southwestern Minnesota, have spent tens of
thousands of dollars yearly in an unsuccessful search for another water
source, always with the same disappointing results. Eventually,
however, it was determined that by working together with communities
throughout the region and in all three states, a workable solution
might be found.
That solution is the bill we are introducing today. Under this
legislation, local communities will come together with the affected
states and the federal government to form a strong, financial
partnership, thereby ensuring an adequate, safe water supply while
reducing the cost to the American taxpayers.
The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System is a fiscally responsible
project that invests in the future economic health of the tri-state
region by strengthening its critical utilities infrastructure. With
increasing population growth, economic development, new federal
drinking water regulations, water demands, and shallow wells and
aquifers which are subject to contamination, it is critical that the
area encompassed by the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System establish a
clean, reliable water source to meet the demand for future water use
that cannot be met by present resources.
Mr. President, this legislation has been before the Senate for the
last two Congresses. Last year, we were successful in passing the
legislation through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This
year, we must see this bill passed by the Senate and the House and sent
to the President for his signature.
Providing safe and available drinking water to our communities is one
of the most basic functions of government. It is not a partisan issue,
and therefore I am proud to join with a bipartisan group of my
colleagues and the governors of Minnesota, South Dakota, and Iowa in
supporting this bill.
______

By Mr. HATCH:
S. 245. A bill to reauthorize the Federal programs to prevent
violence against women, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 1999

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill titled
``Violence Against Women Act of 1999.'' I expect that this will be one
of several

[[Page 1020]]

bills introduced this week in both the Senate and the House of
Representatives, reflecting an array of ideas and views on the
reauthorization of existing programs and the creation of new ones.
Let me say at the outset, that one of my proudest accomplishments in
this body was my work with Senator Joe Biden earlier this decade
culminating in the passage of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. I
have great hopes that Senator Biden and I can duplicate that strong
bipartisan effort in the 106th Congress.
Five years after the passage of VAWA I, I think it is fair to say
that this Act has significantly enhanced the efforts of law enforcement
in combating violence against women and improved the services available
to victims of domestic violence in my home state of Utah and across the
nation.
But five years later, it is time to advance the process in three
major respects: (1) it is time to review and evaluate the effectiveness
of programs created by the 1994 Act and to reexamine the adequacy of
the funding levels for these programs; (2) it is time to review law
enforcement's efforts and successes as a result of the 1994 Act; and
(3) it is time to survey and consider the need for new programs and
further changes in the law.
Thus, while I am today introducing a bill that reauthorizes the
majority of current programs, many at increased funding levels, I think
that these programs need first to be evaluated as to whether available
funds are being used in the most effective way possible. Further, I
know that Senator Biden has a number of ideas for new programs and
changes in the law, and I look forward to working with him on some of
those ideas.
Finally, let me just note that my bill also contains some new
proposals regarding campus violence, battered immigrant women, and the
victims of domestic violence on military bases around the country. Like
many Americans, I watched with some horror on Sunday night as ``60
Minutes'' detailed the degree of domestic violence on and around our
military bases and the apparent lack of serious responsiveness by
persons in charge. This situation, if accurately portrayed, is not
acceptable, and this Administration needs to act swiftly and
effectively to change what is reportedly happening. To that end, my
bill includes a provision requiring a prompt review and report by the
Secretary of Defense on the incidence of and response to domestic
violence on our military bases.
In sum, Mr. President, I hope that enacting effective legislation to
combat violence against women will be a priority in the 106th Congress.
I intend to do my best, working in a bipartisan fashion, to ensure that
it is.
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. McCain, Mr. DeWine, Mr.
Kohl, and Mr. Lott):
S. 247. A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to reform the
copyright law with respect to satellite retransmissions of broadcast
signals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

the satellite home viewer improvements act of 1999

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
will help provide for greater consumer choice and competition in
television services, the ``Satellite Home Viewer Improvements Act of
1999.'' Joining me in introducing this bill are the Majority Leader,
Senator Lott, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Judiciary
Committee, Senator Leahy, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce
Committee, Senator McCain, and my colleagues on the Judiciary
Committee, Senators DeWine and Kohl.
The options consumers have for viewing television entertainment have
vastly increased since that fateful day in September 1927 when
television inventor and Utah native Philo T. Farnsworth, together with
his wife and colleagues, viewed the first television transmission in
the Farnsworth's home workshop: a single black line rotated from
vertical to horizontal. Both the forms of entertainment and the
technologies for delivering that entertainment have proliferated over
the 70 years since that day. In the 1940's and 1950's, televisions
began arriving in an increasing number of homes to pick up
entertainment being broadcast into a growing number of cities and
towns.
In the late 1960's and early 1970's, cable television began offering
communities more television choices by initially providing community
antenna systems for receiving broadcast television signals, and later
by offering new created-for-cable entertainment. The development of
cable television made dramatic strides with the enactment of the cable
compulsory license in 1976, providing an efficient way of clearing
copyright rights for the retransmission of broadcast signals over cable
systems.
In the 1980's, television viewers began to be able to receive
television entertainment with their own home satellite equipment, and
the enactment of the Satellite Home Viewer Act in 1988 helped develop a
system of providing options for television service to Americans who
lived in areas too remote to receive television signals over the air or
via cable.
Much has changed since the original Satellite Home Viewer Act was
adopted in 1988. The Satellite Home Viewer Act was originally intended
to ensure that households that could not get television in any other
way, traditionally provided through broadcast or cable, would be able
to get television signals via satellite. The market and satellite
industry has changed substantially since 1988. Many of the difficulties
and controversies associated with the satellite license have been at
least partly a product of the satellite business attempting to move
from a predominately need-based rural niche service to a full service
video delivery competitor in all markets, urban and rural.
Now, many market advocates both in and out of Congress are looking to
satellite carriers to compete directly with cable companies for
viewership, because we believe that an increasingly competitive market
is better for consumers both in terms of cost and the diversity of
programming available. The bill I introduce today will move us toward
that kind of robust competition.
In short, this bill is focused on changes that we can make this year
to move the satellite television industry to the next level, making it
a full competitor in the multi-channel video delivery market. It has
been said time and again that a major, and perhaps the biggest,
impediment to satellite's ability to be a strong competitor to cable is
its current inability to provide local broadcast signals. (See, e.g.,
Business Week (22 Dec. 1997) p. 84.) This problem has been partly
technological and partly legal.
Even as we speak, the technological hurdles to local retransmission
of broadcast signals are being lowered substantially. Emerging
technology is now enabling the satellite industry to begin to offer
television viewers their own local programming of news, weather,
sports, and entertainment, with digital quality picture and sound. This
will mean that viewers in the remoter areas of my large home state of
Utah will be able to watch television programming originating in Salt
Lake City, rather than New York or California. Utahns in remote areas
will have access to local weather and other locally and regionally
relevant information. In fact, one satellite carrier is already
providing such a service in Utah.
Today, with this bill, we hope to begin removing the legal
impediments to use of this emerging technology to make local
retransmission of broadcast signals a reality for all subscribers. The
most important result will be that the constituents of all my
colleagues will finally have a choice for full service multi-channel
video programming. They will be able to choose cable or one of a number
of satellite carriers. This should foster an environment of
proliferating choice and lowered prices, all to the benefit of
consumers, our constituents.
To that end, the ``Satellite Home Viewer Improvements Act'' makes the

[[Page 1021]]

following changes in the copyright governing satellite television
transmissions:
It creates a new copyright license which allows satellite carriers to
retransmit a local television station to households and businesses
throughout that station's local market, just like cable does, and sets
a zero copyright rate for providing this service.
It extends the satellite compulsory licenses for both local and
distant signals, which are now set to expire at the end of the year,
until 2004.
It cuts the copyright rates paid for distant signals by 30 or 45
percent, depending on the type of signal.
It allows consumers to switch from cable to satellite service for
network signals without waiting a 90-day period now required in the
law.
It allows for a national Public Broadcasting Service satellite feed.
Many of my colleagues in this chamber will recognize this legislation
as substantively identical to a bill reported unanimously by the
Judiciary Committee last year. I am pleased with the degree of
cooperation and consensus we were able to forge with respect to this
legislation last year, and I hope that we can pick up where we left off
to bring this bill before the Senate for swift consideration and
approval.
As I indicated late in the last Congress, the bill I am introducing
is intended to be a piece of a larger joint work product to be crafted
in conjunction with our colleagues on the Commerce Committee. Once
again in the 106th Congress, it is our intention that the Judiciary
Committee will move forward with consideration of the copyright
legislation I am introducing today, which, as I indicated, is
cosponsored by the Chairman of the Commerce Committee. The Commerce
Committee will proceed simultaneously to consider separate legislation
to be introduced by Chairman McCain to address related communications
amendments regarding such important areas as the must-carry and
retransmission consent requirements for satellite carriers upon which
the copyright licenses will be conditioned, and the FCC's distant
signal eligibility process. It is our joint intention to combine our
respective work product as two titles of the same bill in a way that
will clearly delineate the work product of each committee, but combine
them into the seamless whole necessary to make the licenses work for
consumers and the affected industries.
We need to act quickly on this legislation. The Satellite Home Viewer
Act sunsets at the end of this year, placing at risk the service of
many of the 11 million satellite subscribers nationwide. Many of our
constituents are confused about the status of satellite service because
of a court order requiring the cessation of distant-signal satellite
service in February and April to as many as 2.5 million subscribers
nationally who have been adjudged ineligible for distant signal service
under current law. The granting of the local license, together with
some resolution of the eligibility rules for distant signals and a more
consumer-friendly process can help bring clarity to these consumers.
Let me again thank the Majority Leader for his interest in and
leadership with respect to these issues, and the Chairman of the
Commerce Committee for his collegiality and cooperation in this
process. I also want to thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee
who have worked on this legislation. This bill is a product of a
bipartisan effort with Senators Leahy, DeWine, and Kohl. I look forward
to continued collaboration with them and with our other colleagues to
help hasten more vigorous competition in the television delivery market
and the ever-widening consumer choice that will follow it.
I ask unanimous consent that an explanatory section-by-section
analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Section-by-Section Description of S. 247

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

The title of the bill is the ``Satellite Home Viewer
Improvements Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS; SECONDARY
TRANSMISSIONS BY SATELLITE CARRIERS WITHIN
LOCAL MARKETS.

Section 2 of the bill creates a new copyright compulsory
license, found at section 122 of title 17 of the United
States Code, for the retransmission of television broadcast
stations by satellite carriers to subscribers located within
the local markets of those stations. In order to be eligible
for this compulsory license, a satellite carrier must be in
full compliance with all applicable rules and regulations of
the Federal Communications Commission, including any must-
carry obligations imposed upon the satellite carrier by the
Commission or by law.
Because the copyrighted programming contained on local
broadcast programming is already licensed with the
expectation that all viewers in the local market will be able
to view the programming, the new section 122 license is a
royalty-free license. Satellite carriers must, however,
provide local broadcasters with lists of their subscribers
receiving local stations so that broadcasters may verify that
satellite carriers are making proper use of the license. The
subscriber information supplied to broadcasters is for
verification purposes only, and may not be used by
broadcasters for other reasons.
Satellite carriers are liable for copyright infringement,
and subject to the full remedies of the Copyright Act, if
they violate one or more of the following requirements of the
section 122 license. First, satellite carriers may not in any
way willfully alter the programming contained on a local
broadcast station.
Second, satellite carriers may not use the section 122
license to retransmit a television station to a subscriber
located outside the local market of the station. If a carrier
willfully or repeatedly violates this limitation on a
nationwide basis, then the carrier may be enjoined from
retransmitting that signal. If the broadcast station involved
is a network station, then the carrier could lose the right
to retransmit any network stations affiliated with that same
network. If the willful or repeated violation of the
restriction is performed on a local or regional basis, then
the right to retransmit the station (or, if a network
station, then all other stations affiliated with that
network) can be enjoined on a local or regional basis,
depending upon the circumstances. In addition to termination
of service on a nationwide or local or regional basis,
statutory damages are available up to $250,000 for each 6-
month period during which the pattern or practice of
violations was carried out. Satellite carriers have the
burden of proving that they are not improperly making use of
the section 122 license to serve subscribers outside the
local markets of the television broadcast stations they are
providing.
The section 122 license is not limited to private home
viewing, as is the section 119 compulsory license, so that
satellite carriers may make use of it to serve commercial
establishments as well as homes. The local market of a
television broadcast station for purposes of the section 122
license will be defined by the Federal Communications
Commission as part of its broadcast carriage rules for
satellite carriers.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 119 OF
TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE.

Section 3 of the bill extends the expiration date of the
current section 119 satellite compulsory license from
December 31, 1999 to December 31, 2004.

SEC. 4. COMPUTATION OF ROYALTY FEES FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS.

Section 4 of the bill reduces the 27 cent royalty fee
adopted last year by the Librarian of Congress for the
retransmission of network and superstation signals by
satellite carriers under the section 119 license. The 27 cent
rate for superstations is reduced by 30 percent per
subscriber per month, and the 27 cent rate for network
stations is reduced by 45 percent per subscriber per month.
In addition, section 119(c) of title 17 is amended to
clarify that in royalty distribution proceedings conducted
under section 802 of the Copyright Act, the Public
Broadcasting Service may act as agent for all public
television copyright claimants and all Public Broadcasting
Service member stations.

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

Section 5 of the bill adds two new definitions to the
current section 119 satellite license. The ``unserved
household'' definition is modified to eliminate the 90 day
waiting period for satellite subscribers to wait after
termination of their cable service until they are eligible
for satellite service of network signals. A new definition of
a ``local network station'' is added to clarify that the
section 119 license is limited to the retransmission of
distant television stations, and not local stations.

SEC. 6. PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICES SATELLITE FEED.

Section 6 of the bill extends the section 119 license to
cover the copyrighted programming carried upon the Public
Broadcasting's national satellite feed. The national
satellite feed is treated as a superstation for compulsory
license purposes. Also, the bill requires that PBS must
certify to the Copyright Office on an annual basis that the
PBS membership continues to support retransmission

[[Page 1022]]

of the national satellite feed under the section 119 license.

SEC. 7. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
REGULATIONS.

Section 7 of the bill amends the current section 119
license to make it contingent upon full compliance with all
rules and regulations of the FCC. This provision mirrors the
requirement imposed upon cable operators under the cable
compulsory license.

SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this bill become effective on
January 1, 1999, with the exception of section 4 which
becomes effective on July 1, 1999.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on this first legislative day of the new
session, I am joining Chairman Hatch of the Judiciary Committee to
introduce a bill to help protect satellite TV viewers. I know it also
has the support of subcommittee Chairman, Senator DeWine, and its
ranking member, Senator Kohl. I appreciate the fact that Republicans
and Democrats are working together on this issue. I also want to thank
the Majority Leader, Senator Lott, for his assistance on this issue as
well as the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain and
their ranking member, Senator Hollings. I look forward to working with
all Senators on this matter.
I have received hundreds of calls from Vermonters last year whose
satellite TV service was about to be terminated. I am still hearing
from Vermonters from all over the state. They are steaming mad and so
am I.
This is an outrageous situation--the law must be changed and the
Federal Communications Commission has to do its job.
I have worked to change the law over the last two years to try to
avoid the situation we now face. I have also insisted that the FCC
change its unrealistic rules that will result in needless terminations
of service to Vermont families.
Unfortunately, we are on a collision course because of two Court
orders affecting CBS and Fox signals offered to home dish owners, an
inability to pass needed legislation last year, and the unwillingness
of the FCC to step in and alleviate this situation.
Before I go into the details I want to point out that this bipartisan
bill represents very good public policy. It will increase competition
among TV providers, give consumers more choices, preserve the local
affiliate TV system, act to lower cable and satellite rates, and will
eventually offer local news, weather and programming over satellite TV
instead of programming from distant stations. Over the next couple
years, this initiative can solve the problem of losing satellite
service by allowing satellites to offer a full array of local TV
stations.
It will lead to lower rates for consumers because the bill creates
head-to-head competition between cable and satellite TV providers. The
bill will allow households who want to subscribe to this new satellite
TV service, called ``local-into-local''--to receive all local Vermont
TV stations over the satellite.
The goal is to offer Vermonters with more choices, more TV
selections, but at lower rates. In areas of the country where there is
this full competition with cable providers, rates to customers are
considerably lower.
Thus, over time this initiative will permit satellite TV providers to
offer a full selection of all local TV channels to viewers throughout
most of Vermont, as well as the typical complement of superstations,
weather and sports channels, PBS, movies and a variety of other
channels. This means that local Vermont TV stations will be available
over satellite dishes to many areas of Vermont currently not served by
satellite or by cable.
Under current law, it is illegal for satellite TV providers to offer
distant TV channels over satellite when you live in an area where you
are normally likely to get a clear local TV signal with a regular
rooftop antenna.
In addition, under current law many families must get their local TV
signals over an antenna which often does not provide a clear picture.
This bill will remove that legal limitation and allow satellite
carriers to offer local TV signals to viewers no matter where they live
in Vermont.
To take advantage of this, satellite carriers over time will have to
follow the rules that cable providers have to follow. This will mean
that they must carry all local Vermont TV stations and not carry
distant network stations that compete with local stations.
Presently Vermonters receive network satellite signals with
programming from stations in other states--in other words receive a CBS
station from another state but not WCAX, the Burlington CBS affiliate.
By allowing satellite providers to offer a larger variety of
programming, including local stations, the satellite industry would be
able to compete with cable, and the cable industry will be competing
with satellite carriers.
All the members of the Judiciary Committee have worked on this matter
and I appreciate their efforts. On November 12, of 1997, Chairman Hatch
and I held a full Committee hearing on satellite issues to try to avoid
needless cutoffs of satellite TV service while, at the same time,
working to protect the network affiliate TV broadcast system.
Soon after, on March 5, 1998, we introduced the Hatch-Leahy satellite
bill (S. 1720) to address these concerns. This bill was amended in
Committee with a Hatch-Leahy substitute and was reported out of the
Judiciary Committee unanimously on October 1, 1998.
In the meantime, in July 1998, a federal district court judge in
Florida found that PrimeTime 24 was offering distant CBS and Fox
television signals to more than a million households in the U.S. in a
manner inconsistent with its compulsory license that permits such
satellite service only to households who do not get at least ``grade B
intensity'' service. Under a preliminary injunction, satellite service
to thousands of households in Vermont and other states was to be
terminated on October 8, 1998, for CBS and Fox distant network signals
for households signed up after March 11, 1997, the date the action was
filed.
To avoid immediate cutoffs of satellite TV service in Vermont and
other states, the parties requested an extension of the October 8,
1998, termination date which was granted until February 28, 1999. This
extension was also designed to give the FCC time to address these
problems faced by satellite home dish owners.
The FCC solicited comments on whether the current definition of grade
B intensity was adequate.
I was very concerned about the FCC proposal in this matter and filed
a comment asking the FCC to come up with a realistic and workable
system to protect satellite dish owners. I criticized the FCC rule in
that it would cut off households from receiving distant signals based
on ``unwarranted assumptions'' in a manner inconsistent with the law
and the clear intent of the Congress. I complained about entire towns
in Vermont which were to be inappropriately cut off and insisted that
FCC issue a final rule that permits ``a smooth transition to `local-
into-local' satellite TV service.''
I said in my comment to their proposal that: ``The Commission's
proposal raises a number of complex issues, yet the guiding principle
that the FCC should follow is simple: No customer's `distant' satellite
TV signals should be cut off if the customer is unable to receive local
TV broadcasts over-the-air.''
I also pointed out that: ``The clear purpose of the law was, and is,
to protect those living in more rural areas so that they can receive TV
signals using satellite dishes when they are unable to receive a strong
signal using an antenna. Your final rule should reflect that purpose. I
have heard from constituents in two Vermont towns where I am told that
almost no one can receive a clear TV signal, yet all families with
satellite dishes were being targeted for termination of their satellite
TV channels.''
I also noted in my comment: ``A second area that concerns me relates
to who should bear the cost of any testing that is done. I have heard
from Vermonters who are justifiably furious that they are being asked
to pay for these costs. The burden of proof and the burden of any
additional expenses should not be assessed upon the families owning the
satellite dishes.''

[[Page 1023]]

``While the hills and mountains of Vermont are a natural wonder, they
are barriers to receiving clear TV signals over-the-air with roof top
antennas. For example, at my home in Middlesex, Vermont, we can only
get one channel clearly and the other channel with lots of ghosts.''
In yet another development, the Florida district court filed a final
order which will also require that households signed up for satellite
service before March 11, 1997, be subject to termination of CBS and Fox
distant signals on April 30, 1999, if they live in areas where they are
likely to receive a grade B intensity signal, as defined by the Court
and FCC rules, and are unable to get the local CBS or Fox affiliate to
consent to receipt of the distant signal. My understanding is that each
subscriber that is to lose service must receive notice 45 days in
advance.
I want to make clear, as I did in my comment to the FCC, that I
strongly believe in the local affiliate television system. Local
broadcast stations provide the public with local news, local weather,
local informational programming, local emergency advisories, candidate
forums, local public affairs programming, and high quality programs.
Local broadcast stations contribute to our sense of community.
I strongly believe that when the full local-into-local satellite
system is in place, this system will enhance the local affiliate
television system.
I, thus, urge my colleagues to cosponsor this effort.
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Thurmond, Mr.
Sessions, and Mr. Kyl):
S. 248. A bill to modify the procedures of the Federal courts in
certain matters, to reform prisoner litigation, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.

the judicial improvement act of 1999

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with
Senators Ashcroft, Thurmond, Kyl, and Sessions, the ``Judicial
Improvement Act of 1999.'' This legislation is designed to preserve the
democratic process by strengthening the constitutional division of
powers between the Federal Government and the States and between
Congress and the Courts. I introduced this legislation last session,
but, to my regret, the Senate did not have an opportunity to act upon
it. I am re-introducing it because the same ills that were plaguing our
judicial system continue to exist, and I believe this legislation can
remedy these ills. I have every expectation that this legislation will
be acted upon and favorably passed this session.
I have always given credit where credit is due. So let me state that
on the whole, our federal judges respect their constitutional roles and
the Senate is aware of these judges' dedication to administering their
oaths of office. Yet, unfortunately, this dedication is not universal
and a degree of overreaching by some judges dictates that Congress move
to more clearly delineate the proper role of federal judges. In our
constitutional system, judges can not conveniently forget or blatantly
ignore that the Constitution has exclusively reserved to Congress the
power to legislate and limited their power to the interpretation of the
law.
This careful, but deliberate, separation of legislative and judicial
functions is a cornerstone of our constitutional system. Regardless of
the temptation to embrace a certain judge's decision that some may find
socially or politically expedient, we must remember that no interest is
more compelling than preserving our Constitution.
Now, attempts by certain federal judges to infringe upon Congress's
legislative authority deeply concern me. I have taken the floor in this
chamber on numerous occasions to recite some of the more troubling
examples of judicial overreaching. I will not revisit them today.
Suffice it to say that activism, and by that I mean a judge who ignores
the written text of the law, whether from the right or the left,
threatens our constitutional structure.
As an elected official, my votes for legislation are subject to voter
approval. Federal judges, however, are unelected, hence they are, as a
practical matter, unaccountable to the public. While tenure during good
behavior, which amounts to life tenure, is important in that it frees
judges to make unpopular but constitutionally sound decisions, it can
become a threat to liberty when placed in the wrong hands. And
substituting the will of life-tenured federal judges for the
democratically elected representatives is not what our Constitution's
framers had in mind.
In an effort to avoid this long-contemplated problem, the proposed
reform legislation we are introducing today will assist in ensuring
that all three branches of the Federal Government work together in a
fashion contemplated by, and consistent with, the Constitution. In
addition, this legislation will ensure that federal judges are more
respectful of the States and their respective sovereignty.
I want to be clear in stating that this bill does not, as some may
claim, challenge the independence of federal judges. However, there are
currently some activist federal judges improperly expanding their roles
in an effort to substitute their own ideas and interests for the will
of the people. Judges, however, are simply not entitled to deviate from
their roles as interpreters of the law in order to create new law from
the bench. If they believe otherwise, they are derelict in their duties
and should leave the federal bench to run for public office--at least
then they would be accountable for their actions. It is time that we
pass legislation that precludes any federal judge from blurring the
lines separating the legislative and judicial functions.
It is important to note that the effort to reign in judicial activism
should not be limited simply to opposing potential activist nominees.
While the careful scrutiny of judicial nominees is one important step
in the confirmation process, a step reserved to the Senate alone,
Congress itself has an obligation to the public to ensure that judges
fulfill their constitutionally prescribed roles and do not encroach
upon those powers delegated to the legislature. Hence, the Congress
performs an important role in bringing activist decisions to light and,
where appropriate, publicly criticizing those decisions. Some view this
as an assault upon judicial independence. That is untrue. It is merely
a means of engaging in debate about a decision's merits or the process
by which the decision was reached. Such criticism is a healthy part of
our democratic system. While life tenure insulates judges from the
political process, it should not, and must not, isolate them from the
people.
In addition, the Constitution grants Congress the authority, with a
few notable limitations, to set federal courts' jurisdiction. This is
an important tool that, while seldom used, sets forth the circumstances
in which the judicial power may be exercised. A good example of this is
the 104th Congress' effort to reform the statutory writ of habeas
corpus in an attempt to curb the seemingly endless series of petitions
filed by convicted criminals bent on thwarting the demands of justice.
Legislation of this nature is an important means of curbing activism.
In an effort to accomplish these goals, I have chosen to re-
introduce, along with my colleagues, the Judicial Improvement Act. It
is a small, albeit meaningful, step in the right direction. Notably,
this legislation will change the way federal courts review
constitutional challenges to state and federal laws. The existing
process allows a single federal judge to hear and grant applications
regarding the constitutionality of state and federal laws as well as
state ballot initiatives. In other words, a single federal judge can
impede the will of a majority of the voters merely by issuing an order
halting the implementation of a state referendum.
This proposed reform will accomplish the twin goals of fighting
judicial activism and preserving the democratic process. In essence,
this bill modestly proposes to respond to the problem of judicial
activism in part by: (1) Requiring a three judge district court panel
to hear appeals and grant interlocutory or permanent injunctions based
on the constitutionality of a state law or referendum; (2) placing time
limitations

[[Page 1024]]

on remedial authority in any civil action in which prospective relief
or a consent judgment binds State or local officials; (3) prohibiting a
federal court from having the authority to order state or local
governments to increase taxes as part of a judicial remedy; (4)
preventing a federal court from prohibiting state or local officials
from reprosecuting a defendant; and (5) preventing a federal court from
ordering the release of violent offenders under unwarranted
circumstances.
As I said last session and still believe to be true, this reform bill
is a long overdue effort to minimize the potential for judicial
activism in the federal court system. Americans are understandably
frustrated when they exercise their right to vote and the will of their
elected representatives is frustrated by judges who enjoy life tenure.
It is no wonder that millions of Americans do not think their vote
matters when they enact a referendum only to have it enjoined by a
single district court judge. By improving the way federal courts
analyze constitutional challenges to laws and initiatives, Congress
will protect the rights of parties to challenge unconstitutional laws
while at the same time reduce the ability of activist judges to abuse
their power and circumvent the will of the people.
I want to take a few moments to again describe how this legislation
will curb the ability of federal judges to engage in judicial activism.
The first reform would require a three judge panel to hear and issue
interlocutory and permanent injunctions regarding challenged laws at
the district court level. The current system allows a single federal
judge to restrain the enforcement, operation and execution of
challenged federal or state laws, including initiatives. There have
been many instances where an activist judge has used this power to
overturn a ballot initiative only to have his or her order overturned
by a higher court years later.
One need only remember how Proposition 209, a ballot initiative
passed by the voters which prohibited affirmative action in California,
was held in abeyance after a district court judge issued an injunction
barring its enforcement to understand how the three judge panel
provision may in fact play a role in ensuring that the will of the
people is not wrongfully thwarted. The injunction was subsequently
overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that the
law was constitutional. A three judge panel perhaps may have ruled
correctly initially, allowing the democratic process to work properly
while also saving taxpayer dollars.
Obviously, I have no problem with a court declaring a law
unconstitutional when it violates the written text of the Constitution.
It is, however, inappropriate when a judge attempts to act like a
legislator and imposes his own policy preference on the citizens of a
state. Such an action weakens respect for the federal judiciary,
creates cynicism in the voting public, and costs governments millions
of dollars in legal fees. By requiring a ruling by a three judge panel
to overturn the validity of a State law, the proposed law would
eliminate the ability of one activist judge to unilaterally bar
enforcement of a law or ballot initiative through an interlocutory or
permanent injunction.
In addition, new time limits on injunctive relief would be imposed. A
temporary restraining order would remain in force no more than 10 days,
and an interlocutory injunction no more than 60 days. After the
expiration of an interlocutory injunction, federal courts would lack
the authority to grant any additional interlocutory relief but would
still have the power to issue a permanent injunction. These limitations
are designed to prevent the federal judiciary from indefinitely barring
implementation of challenged laws by issuing endless injunctions, and
facilitate the appeals process by motivating courts to speedily handle
constitutional challenges. What this reform essentially does is
encourage the federal judiciary to rule on the merits of a case, and
not use injunctions to keep a challenged law from going into effect or
being heard by an appeals court through the use of delaying tactics.
The bill also proposes to require that a notice of appeal must be
filed not more than fourteen days after the date of an order granting
an interlocutory injunction and the appeals court would lack
jurisdiction over an untimely appeal of such an order. The court of
appeals would apply a de novo standard of review before reconsidering
the merits of granting relief, but not less than 100 days after the
issuance of the original order granting interlocutory relief. If the
interlocutory order is upheld on appeal, the order would remain in
force no longer than 60 days after the date of the appellate decision
or until replaced by a permanent injunction.
The bill also proposes limitations on the remedial authority of
federal courts. In any civil action where prospective relief or a
consent judgment binds state and local officials, relief would be
terminated upon the motion of any party or intervener: (a) Five years
after the date the court granted or approved the prospective relief;
(b) two years after the date the court has entered an order denying
termination of prospective relief; or (c) in the case of an order
issued on or before the date of enactment of this act, two years after
the date of enactment.
Parties could agree to terminate or modify an injunction before
relief is available if it otherwise would be legally permissible.
Courts would promptly rule on motions to modify or terminate this
relief and in the event that a motion is not ruled on within 60 days,
the order or consent judgment binding state and local officials would
automatically terminate.
However, prospective relief would not terminate if the federal court
makes written findings based on the record that relief remains
necessary to correct an ongoing violation of a federal right, extends
no further than necessary to correct the violation and is the least
intrusive means available to correct the violation of a federal right.
Moreover, this measure would also prohibit a federal court from
having the authority to order a unit of state or local government to
increase taxes as part of a judicial remedy. When an unelected federal
judge has the power to order tax increases, this results in taxation
without representation. Americans have fought against unfair taxation
since the Revolutionary War, and this bill would prevent unfair
judicial taxation and leave the power to tax to elected representatives
of the people.
The bill would not limit the authority of a federal court to order a
remedy which may lead a unit of local or state government to decide to
increase taxes. A federal court would still have the power to issue a
money judgment against a State because the court would not be
attempting to restructure local government entities or mandating a
particular method or structure of State or local financing. This bill
also doesn't limit the remedial authority of State courts in any case,
including cases raising issues of federal law. All the bill does is
prevent federal courts from having the power to order elected
representatives to raise taxes. This is moderate reform which prevents
judicial activism and unfair taxation while preserving the federal
courts power to order remedial measures.
Another important provision of the bill would prevent a federal court
from prohibiting State or local officials from re-prosecuting a
defendant. This legislation is designed to clarify that federal habeas
courts lack the authority to bar retrial as a remedy.
This part of the legislation was co-sponsored by Congressman Pitts
and Senator Specter in response to a highly-publicized murder case in
the Congressman's district. Sixteen year old Laurie Show was harrassed,
stalked and assaulted for six months by the defendant, who had a
vendetta against Show for briefly dating the defendant's boyfriend.
After luring Show's mother from their residence, the defendant and an
accomplice forcefully entered the Show home, held the victim down, and
slit her throat with a butcher knife, killing her. After the defendant
was convicted in state court, she filed a habeas petition in which she
alleged prosecutorial misconduct and averred her

[[Page 1025]]

actual innocence. A federal district court judge not only accepted this
argument and released the defendant, but he also took the extraordinary
step of barring state and local officials from reprosecuting the woman.
This judge even went so far as to state that the defendant was the
``first and foremost victim of this affair.''
Congress has long supported the ability of a federal court to fashion
creative remedies to preserve constitutional protections, but the
additional step of barring state or local officials from reprosecution
is without precedent and an unacceptable intrusion on the rights of
States. This bill, if enacted, will prevent this type of judicial
activism from ever occurring again.
This bill also contains provisions for the termination of prospective
relief when it is no longer warranted to cure a violation of a federal
right. Once a violation that was the subject of a consent decree has
been corrected, a consent decree must be terminated unless the court
finds that an ongoing violation of a federal right exists, the specific
relief is necessary to correct the violation of a Federal right, and no
other relief will correct the violation of the Federal right. The party
opposing the termination of relief has the burden of demonstrating why
the relief should not be terminated, and the court is required to grant
the motion to terminate if the opposing party fails to meet its burden.
These provisions prevent consent decrees from remaining in effect once
a proper remedy has been implemented, thereby preventing judges from
imposing consent decrees that go beyond the requirements of law.
The proposed reform law also includes provisions designed to dissuade
prisoners from filing frivolous and malicious motions by requiring that
the complainant prisoner pay for the costs of the filings. These
provisions will undoubtedly curb the number of frivolous motions filed
by prisoners and thus, relieve the courts of the obligation to hear
these vacuous motions designed to mock and frustrate the judicial
system.
Finally, the bill proposes to prevent federal judges from entering or
carrying out any prisoner release order that would result in the
release from or nonadmission to a prison on the basis of prison
conditions. This provision effectively will preclude activist judges
from circumventing mandatory minimum sentencing laws by stripping
federal judges of jurisdiction to enter such orders. This will ensure
that the tough sentencing laws approved by voters to keep murderers,
rapists, and drug dealers behind bars for lengthy terms will not be
ignored by activist judges who improperly use complaints of prison
conditions filed by convicts as a vehicle to release violent offenders
back on to our streets. It will also prevent any federal judge from
ever endangering families and children in our communities by preventing
these judges from releasing prisoners based on prison conditions.
Congress repeatedly has tried to ensure that convicted prisoners stay
where they belong: in prison for the term to which they were sentenced.
This effort has been ongoing for over 10 years. Consider the following
examples: (1) In 1987, Congress passed the Sentencing Guidelines which
effectively limited the probation of prisoners; (2) the 1994 Crime Bill
contained incentives for States to pass Truth in Sentencing Laws which
kept convicted prisoners incarcerated for longer periods; and (3) the
Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1996 allowed for the revocation of
good time credit if prisoners filed malicious, repetitive and frivolous
law suits while in prison. The reform bill being introduced today will
further Congress' ongoing efforts to provide safer streets for all
Americans by ensuring that convicted prisoners who pose a danger to our
communities are not released prior to the expiration of their mandated
sentences.
This timely legislation is a measured effort to improve the way the
federal judiciary works. It is not an attempt to infringe upon judicial
independence. To the contrary, this reform bill is a sensible, balanced
attempt to promote judicial efficiency and to prevent egregious
judicial activism. I encourage all of my colleagues to act swiftly on
and support this truly needed legislation.
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 249. A bill to provide funding for the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children, to reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth
Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act

Mr. HATCH, Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Missing,
Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act of 1999. This bill
reauthorizes two vital laws that serve a crucial line of defense in
support of some of the most vulnerable members of our society--
thousands of missing, exploited, homeless, or runaway children. It is a
tragedy in our Nation that each year there are as many as over 114,000
attempted child abductions, 4,500 child abductions reported to the
police, 450,000 children who run away, and 438,000 children who are
lost, injured, or missing. I am told that this is a growing problem
even in my State of Utah.
Families who have written to me have shared the pain of a lost or
missing child. While missing, lost, on the run, or abducted, each of
these children is at high risk of falling into the darkness of drug
abuse, sexual abuse and exploitation, pain, hunger, and injury. Each of
these children is precious, and deserves our efforts to save them. The
bill I am introducing today is a step in that direction.
My bill reauthorizes and improves the Missing Children's Assistance
Act and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. First,this bill revises the
Missing Children's Assistance Act in part by recognizing the
outstanding record of achievements of this National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children. It will enable NCMEC to provide even greater
protection of our Nation's children in the future. Second, this bill
reauthorizes and revitalizes the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act.
At the heart of the bill's amendments to the Missing Children's
Assistance Act is an enhanced authorization of appropriations for the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Under the authority
of the Missing children's Assistance Act, the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has selected and given
grants to the Center for the last fourteen years to operate a national
resource center located in Arlington, Virginia and a national 24-hour
toll-free telephone line. The Center provides invaluable assistance and
training to law enforcement around the country in cases of missing and
exploited children. The Center's record is quite impressive, and its
efforts have led directly to a significant increase in the percentage
of missing children who are recovered safely.
In fiscal year 1999, the Center received an earmark of $8.12 million
in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations
conference report. In addition, the Center's Jimmy Ryce Training Center
received $1.25 million.
The legislation I am introducing today continues and formalizes
NCMEC's long partnership with the Justice Department and OJJDP, by
directing OJJDP to make an annual grant to the Center, and authorizing
annual appropriations of $10 million for fiscal years 1999 through
2004.
NCMEC's exemplary record of performance and success, as demonstrated
by the fact that NCMEC's recovery rate has climbed from 62% to 91%,
justifies action by Congress to formally recognize it as the nation's
official missing and exploited children's center, and to authorize a
line-item appropriation. This bill will enable the Center to focus
completely on its missions, without expending the annual effort to
obtain authority and grants from OJJDP. It also will allow the Center
to expand its longer-term arrangements with domestic and foreign law
enforcement entities. By providing an authorization, the bill also will
allow for better congressional oversight of the Center.

[[Page 1026]]

The record of the Center, described briefly below, demonstrates the
appropriateness of this authorization. For fourteen years the Center
has served as the national resource center and clearinghouse mandated
by the Missing Children's Assistance Act. The Center has worked in
partnership with the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Department of Treasury, the State Department, and
many other federal and state agencies in the effort to find missing
children and prevent child victimization.
The trust the federal government has placed in NCMEC, a private, non-
profit corporation, is evidenced by its unique access to the FBI's
National Crime Information Center, and the National Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System (NLETS).
NCMEC has utilized the latest in technology, such as operating the
National Child Pornography Tipline, establishing its new Internet
website, www.missingkids.com, which is linked with hundreds of other
websites to provide real-time images of breaking cases of missing
children, and, beginning this year, establishing a new CyberTipline on
child exploitation.
NCMEC has established a national and increasingly worldwide network,
linking NCMEC online with each of the missing children clearinghouses
operated by the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. In
addition, NCMEC works constantly with international law enforcement
authorities such as Scotland Yard in the United Kingdom, the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police, INTERPOL headquarters in Lyon, France and
others. This network enables NCMEC to transmit images and information
regarding missing children to law enforcement across America and around
the world instantly. NCMEC also serve as the U.S. State Department's
representative at child abduction cases under the Hague Convention.
The record of NCMEC is demonstrated by the 1,203,974 calls received
at its 24-hour toll-free hotline, 1(800)THE LOST, the 146,284 law
enforcement, criminal/juvenile justice, and healthcare professionals
trained, the 15,491,344 free publications distributed, and, most
importantly, by its work on 59,481 cases of missing children, which has
resulted in the recovery of 40,180 children. Each of these figures
represents the activity of NCMEC through spring 1998. NCMEC is a
shining example of the type of public-private partnership the Congress
should encourage and recognize.
The second part of the bill I am introducing today reforms and
streamlines the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, targeting federal
assistance to areas with the greatest need, and making numerous
technical changes. According to the National Network for Youth, the
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act provides ``critical assistance to youth
in high-risk situations all over the country.'' Its three programs,
discussed in more detail below, benefit those children truly in need
and at high risk of becoming addicted to drugs, sexually exploited or
abused, or involved in criminal behavior.
The cornerstone of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act is the Basic
Center Program which provides grants for temporary shelter and
counseling for children under age 18. My home state of Utah received
over $378,000 in grants in FY 1998 under this program, and I have
received requests from Utah organizations such as the Baker Youth
Service Home to reauthorize this important program.
Community-based organizations also may request grants under the two
related programs, the Transitional Living and the Sexual Abuse
Prevention/Street Outreach programs. The Transitional Living grants
provide longer term housing to homeless teens aged 16 to 21, and aim to
move these teens to self-sufficiency and to avoid long-term dependency
on public assistance. The Sexual Abuse Prevention/Street Outreach
Program targets homeless teens potentially involved in high risk
behaviors.
In addition, the amendment reauthorizes the Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act Rural Demonstration Projects which provide assistance to
rural juvenile populations, such as in my state of Utah. Finally, the
amendment makes several technical corrections to fix prior drafting
errors in the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act.
The provisions of this bill will strengthen our commitment to our
youth. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which will
strengthen the Missing Children's Assistance Act, the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children, and the Runaway and Homeless Youth
Act, and thus improve the safety of our Nation's children.
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Nickles):
S. 250. A bill to establish ethical standards for Federal
prosecutors, and for other purposes.

federal prosecutor ethics act

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce an
important piece of corrective legislation--the Federal Prosecutor
Ethics Act. This bill will address in a responsible manner the critical
issue of ethical standards for federal prosecutors, while ensuring that
the public servants are permitted to perform their important function
of upholding federal law.
The bill I am introducing today is a careful solution to a troubling
problem--the application of state ethics rules in federal court, and
particularly to federal prosecutors. In short, my bill will subject
federal prosecutors to the bar rules of each state in which they are
licensed unless such rules are inconsistent with federal law or the
effectuation of federal policy or investigations. It also sets specific
standards for federal prosecutorial conduct, to be enforced by the
Attorney General. Finally, it establishes a commission of federal
judges, appointed by the Chief Justice, to review and report on the
interrelationship between the duties of federal prosecutors and
regulation of their conduct by state bars and the disciplinary
procedures utilized by the Attorney General.
No one condones prosecutorial excesses. There have been instances
where law enforcement, and even some federal prosecutors, have gone
overboard. Unethical conduct by any attorney is a matter for concern.
But when engaged in by a federal prosecutor, unethical conduct cannot
be tolerated. For as Justice Sutherland noted in 1935, the prosecutor
is not just to win a case, ``but that justice shall be done. . . . It
is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to
produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to
bring about a just one.''
We must, however, ensure that the rules we adopt to ensure proper
prosecutorial conduct are measured and well-tailored to that purpose.
As my colleagues may recall, last year's omnibus appropriations act
included a very controversial provision known to most of my colleagues
simply as the ``McDade provision,'' after its House sponsor, former
Representative Joe McDade.
This well-intentioned but ill-advised provision was adopted to set
ethical standards for federal prosecutors and other attorneys for the
government. In my view, it was not the measured and well-tailored law
needed to address the legitimate concerns its sponsors sought to
redress. Nor was I alone in this view. So great was the concern over
its impact, in fact, that its effective date was delayed until six
months after enactment. That deadline is approaching. In my view, if
allowed to take effect in its present form, the McDade provision would
cripple the ability of the Department of Justice to enforce federal law
and cede authority to regulate the conduct of federal criminal
investigations and prosecutions to more than 50 state bar associations.
As enacted last fall, the McDade provision adds a new section 530B to
title 28 of the U.S. Code. In its most relevant part, it states that an
``attorney for the government shall be subject to State laws and rules
. . . governing attorneys in each state where such attorney engages in
that attorney's duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as
other attorneys in that state.''
There are important practical considerations which persuasively
counsel

[[Page 1027]]

against allowing 28 U.S.C. 530B to take effect unchanged. I have been a
frequent critic of the trend toward the over-federalization of crime.
Yet the federal government has a most legitimate role in the
investigation and prosecution of complex multistate terrorism, drug,
fraud or organized crime conspiracies, in rooting out and punishing
fraud against federally funded programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and
Social Security, in vindicating the federal civil rights laws, in
investigating and prosecuting complex corporate crime, and in punishing
environmental crime.
It is in these very cases that Section 530B will have its most
pernicious effect. Federal attorneys investigating and prosecuting
these cases, which frequently encompass three, four, or five states,
will be subject to the differing state and local rules of each of those
states, plus the District of Columbia, if they are based here. Their
decisions will be subject to review by the bar and ethics review boards
in each of these states at the whim of defense counsel, even if the
federal attorney is not licensed in that state.
Practices concerning contact with unrepresented persons or the
conduct of matters before a grand jury, perfectly legal and acceptable
in federal court, will be subject to state bar rules. For instance, in
many states, federal attorneys will not be permitted to speak with
represented witnesses, especially witnesses to corporate misconduct,
and the use of undercover investigations will at a minimum be hindered.
In other states, section 530B might require--contrary to long-
established federal grand jury practice--that prosecutors present
exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. Moreover, these rules won't
have to be in effect in the district where the subject is being
investigated, or where the grand jury is sitting to have these effects.
No, these rules only have to be in effect somewhere the investigation
leads, or the federal attorney works, to handcuff federal law
enforcement.
In short, Section 530B will affect every attorney in every department
and agency of the federal government. It will affect enforcement of our
antitrust laws, our environmental laws prohibiting the dumping of
hazardous waste, our labor laws, our civil rights laws, and as I said
before, the integrity of every federal funding program.
Section 530B is also an open invitation to clever defense attorneys
to stymie federal criminal or civil investigations by raising bogus
defenses or bringing frivolous state bar claims. Indeed, this is
happening even without Section 530B as the law of the land. The most
recent example is the use of a State rule against testimony buying to
brand as ``unethical'' the long accepted, and essential, federal
practice of moving for sentence reductions for co-conspirators who
cooperate with prosecutors by testifying truthfully for the government.
How much worse will it be when this provision declares it open season
on federal lawyers?
What will the costs of this provision be? At a minimum, the
inevitable result will be that violations of federal laws will not be
punished, and justice will not be done. But there will be financial
costs to the federal government as well, as a result of defending these
frivolous challenges and from higher costs associated with
investigating and prosecuting violations of federal law.
All of this, however, is not to say that nothing needs to be done on
the issue of attorney ethics in federal court. Indeed, I have
considerable sympathy for the objectives values Section 530B seeks to
protect. All of us who at one time or another have been the subject of
unfounded ethical or legal charges, as I have been as well, know the
frustration of clearing one's name. And no one wants more than I to
ensure that all federal prosecutors are held to the highest ethical
standards. But Section 530B, as it was enacted last year, is not in my
view the way to do it.
The bill I am introducing today addresses the narrow matter of
federal prosecutorial conduct in a responsible way, and I might add, in
a manner that is respectful of both federal and state sovereignty. As
all of my colleagues know, each of our states has at least one federal
judicial district. But the federal courts that sit in these districts
are not courts of the state. They are, of course instrumentalities of
federal sovereignty, created by Congress pursuant to its power under
Article III of the Constitution, which vests the judicial power of the
United States in ``one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.''
As enacted, Section 530B is in my view a serious dereliction of our
Constitutional duty to establish inferior federal courts. Should this
provision take effect, Congress will have ceded the right to control
conduct in the federal courts to more than fifty state bar
associations, at a devastating cost to federal sovereignty and the
independence of the federal judiciary. Simply put, the federal
government, like each of our states, must retain for itself the
authority to regulate the practice of law in its own courts and by its
own lawyers. Indeed, the principle of federal sovereignty in its own
sphere has been well established since Chief Justice Marshall's opinion
in McCulloch v. Maryland [17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 1819].
However, it may only be a first step. For the problem of rules for
the conduct of attorneys in federal court affects more than just
prosecutors. It affects all litigants in each of our federal courts,
who have a right to know what the rules are in the administration of
justice. This is a problem that has been percolating in the federal bar
for over a decade--the diversity of ethical rules governing attorney
conduct in federal court.
Presently, there is no uniform rule that applies in all federal
courts. Rather, applicable ethics rules have been left up to the
discretion of local rules in each federal judicial district. Various
districts have taken different approaches, including adopting state
standards based on either the ABA Model Rules or the ABA Code, adopting
one of the ABA models directly, and in some cases, adopting both an ABA
model and the state rules.
This variety of rules has led to confusion, especially in multiforum
federal practice. As a 1997 report prepared for the Judicial
Conference's Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure put it,
``Multiforum federal practice, challenging under ideal conditions, has
been made increasingly complex, wasteful, and problematic by the
disarray among federal local rules and state ethical standards.''
Moreover, the problem may well be made worse if Section 530B takes
effect in its present form. First, as enacted, Section 530B contains an
internal conflict that will add to the confusion. Section 530B provides
that federal attorneys are governed by both the state laws and bar
rules and the federal court's local rules. These, of course, are
frequently different, setting up the obvious quandary--which take
precedence? Finally, Section 530B might further add to the confusion,
by raising the possibility of different standards in the same court for
opposing litigants--private parties governed by the federal local rules
and prosecutors governed by Section 530B.
The U.S. Judicial Conference's Rules Committee has been studying this
matter, and is considering whether to issue ethics rules pursuant to
its authority under the federal Rules Enabling Act. I believe that this
is an appropriate debate to have, and that it may be time for the
federal bar to mature. The days are past when federal practice was a
small side line of an attorney's practice. Practice in federal court is
now ubiquitous to any attorney's practice of law. It is important,
then, that there be consistent rules. Indeed, for that very reason, we
have federal rules of evidence, criminal procedure, and civil
procedure. Perhaps it is time to consider the development of federal
rules of ethics, as well.
This is not to suggest, of course, a challenge to the traditional
state regulation of the practice of law, or the proper control by state
Supreme Courts of the conduct of attorneys in state court. The
assertion of federal sovereignty over the conduct of attorneys in
federal courts will neither impugn nor diminish the sovereign right

[[Page 1028]]

of states to continue to do the same in state courts. However, the
administration of justice in the federal courts requires the
consideration of uniform rules to apply in federal courts and thus, I
will be evaluating proposals to set uniform rules governing the conduct
of attorneys in federal court.
Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today is of vital
importance to the continued enforcement of federal law. Its importance
is compounded by the deadline imposed by the effective date of Section
530B. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, and support the
Federal Prosecutor Ethics Act.
______

By Mr. THURMOND:
S.J. Res. 1. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States relating to voluntary school prayer;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing the voluntary
school prayer constitutional amendment. This bill is identical to S.J.
Res. 73, which I introduced in the 98th Congress at the request of then
President Reagan and have reintroduced every Congress since.
This proposal has received strong support from both sides of the
aisle and is of vital importance to our Nation. It would restore the
right to pray voluntarily in public schools--a right which was freely
exercised under our Constitution until the 1960's, when the Supreme
Court ruled to the contrary.
Also, in 1985, the Supreme Court ruled an Alabama statute
unconstitutional which authorized teachers in public schools to provide
``a period of silence * * * for meditation or voluntary prayer'' at the
beginning of each school day. As I stated when that opinion was issued
and repeat again: the Supreme Court has too broadly interpreted the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and, in doing so, has
incorrectly infringed on the rights of those children--and their
parents--who wish to observe a moment of silence for religious or other
purposes.
Until the Supreme Court ruled in the Engel and Abington School
District decisions, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was
generally understood to prohibit the Federal Government from officially
approving, or holding in special favor, any particular religious faith
or denomination. In crafting that clause, our Founding Fathers sought
to prevent what had originally caused many colonial Americans to
emigrate to this country--an official, State religion. At the same
time, they sought, through the Free Exercise Clause, to guarantee to
all Americans the freedom to worship God without government
interference or restraint. In their wisdom, they recognized that true
religious liberty precludes the government from both forcing and
preventing worship.
As Supreme Court Justice William Douglas once stated: ``We are a
religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.''
Nearly every President since George Washington has proclaimed a day of
public prayer. Moreover, we, as a Nation, continue to recognize the
Deity in our Pledge of Allegiance by affirming that we are a Nation
``under God.'' Our currency is inscribed with the motto, ``In God We
Trust''. In this Body, we open the Senate and begin our workday with
the comfort and stimulus of voluntary group prayers. I would note that
this practice has been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court.
It is unreasonable that the opportunity for the same beneficial
experience is denied to the boys and girls who attend public schools.
This situation simply does not comport with the intentions of the
framers of the Constitution and is, in fact, antithetical to the rights
of our youngest citizens to freely exercise their respective religions.
It should be changed, without further delay.
The Congress should swiftly pass this resolution and send it to the
States for ratification. This amendment to the Constitution would
clarify that it does not prohibit vocal, voluntary prayer in the public
school and other public institutions. It emphatically states that no
person may be required to participate in any prayer. The government
would be precluded from drafting school prayers. This well-crafted
amendment enjoys the support of an overwhelming number of Americans.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support prompt consideration and
approval of this legislation during this Congress.
Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S.J. Res. 1

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds
of each House concurring therein), That the following article
is hereby proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, which shall be valid to all intents and
purposes as part of the Constitution if ratified by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within
seven years from the date of its submission to the States by
the Congress:

``Article --

``Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to
prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or
other public institutions. No person shall be required by the
United States or by any State to participate in prayer.
Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the
words of any prayer to be said in public schools.''.
______

By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Allard, Mr. Ashcroft,
Mr. Brownback, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Frist, Mr. Gramm,
Mr. Grams, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe,
Mr. Mack, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith of
New Hampshire, and Mr. Thompson):
S.J. Res. 2. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to require two-thirds majorities for
increasing taxes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators
Abraham, Allard, Ashcroft, Brownback, Coverdell, Crapo, Frist, Gramm,
Grams, Hagel, Helms, Hutchison, Inhofe, Mack, McConnell, Sessions,
Shelby, Smith of New Hampshire, and Thompson, to introduce the Tax
Limitation Amendment, a joint resolution that proposes to amend the
Constitution to require a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to
raise taxes.
Mr. President, this is an idea that comes to us from the states.
Voters from around the country have approved similar restrictions in
recent years--doing so in most cases by overwhelming margins. Most
recently, a solid majority of Montana voters approved an amendment to
their state's constitution that requires voter approval of all new
taxes and tax increases. That is a far stronger constraint than what is
being proposed here.
By overwhelming majorities, voters in Arkansas, Maryland, and
Virginia upheld their states tax-limitation initiatives, rejecting
ballot propositions on November 3 last year that were designed to water
down existing constraints on tax increases.
Two years ago, also by overwhelming majorities, voters from Florida
to California approved initiatives aimed at limiting government's
ability to raise taxes. Florida's Question One, which requires a two-
thirds vote of the people to enact or raise any state taxes or fees,
passed with 69.2 percent of the vote.
Seventy percent of Nevada voters approved the Gibbons amendment,
requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the state legislature to pass
new taxes or tax hikes. South Dakotans easily approved an amendment
requiring either a vote of the people or a two-thirds vote of the
legislature for any state tax increase.
And California voters tightened the restrictions in the most famous
tax limitation of all, Proposition 13, so that all taxes at the local
level now have to be approved by a vote of the people. Of course,
voters in my home state of Arizona overwhelmingly approved a state tax
limit of their own in 1992.
The Tax Limitation Amendment I am introducing today would impose
similar constraints on federal tax-raising authority. It would require
a two-

[[Page 1029]]

thirds majority vote of each house of Congress to pass any bill levying
a new tax or increasing the rate or base of any existing tax. In short,
any measure that would take more out of the taxpayers' pockets would
require a supermajority vote to pass.
I would note that the proposed amendment includes provisions that
would allow Congress to waive the supermajority vote requirement in
times of war, or when the United States is engaged in military conflict
which causes an imminent and serious threat to national security. But
to ensure that such waiver authority is truly reserved for such
emergencies and is not abused, any new taxes imposed under a waiver
could only remain in effect for a maximum of two years.
Mr. President, why is a tax-limitation amendment necessary?
The two largest tax increases in our nation's history were enacted
earlier this decade by only the slimmest of margins. In fact, President
Clinton's 1993 tax increase did not even win the support of a majority
of Senators. Vice President Gore broke a 50 to 50 vote tie to secure
its passage.
Despite very modest efforts to cut taxes in the last few years, the
effects of the record-setting tax increases of 1990 and 1993 are still
being felt today. The tax burden imposed on the American people hit a
peacetime high of 19.8 percent of GDP in 1997 and, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, is continuing to rise--to 20.5 percent in
1998 and 20.6 in 1999. That will be higher than any year since 1945,
and it would be only the third and fourth years in our nation's entire
history that revenues have exceeded 20 percent of national income.
Notably, the first two times revenues broke the 20 percent mark, the
economy tipped into recession.
Already, economists are beginning to project slower economic growth
in coming years. Barring any further shocks from abroad, growth for
1999 to 2003 is estimated at about two percent. In fact, growth during
the high-tax Clinton years has averaged only about 2.3 percent
annually. That compares to the 3.9 percent annual growth rate during
the period after the Reagan tax cuts and before the 1990 tax increase.
The heavy tax burden may not be the only reason for slow growth, but it
is a significant factor.
With that in mind, I believe the President and Congress should
consider reducing income-tax rates across the board for all Americans.
We will no doubt have that debate about the need for tax relief in
coming months. But whether we agree to cut taxes or not, we--the
President and Congress--should be able to agree that taxes are high
enough and should not be raised further, at least not without the kind
of significant, broad-based and bipartisan support that would be
required under the Tax Limitation Amendment.
Raising sufficient revenue to pay for government's essential
operation is obviously a necessary part of governing, but raising tax
rates is not necessarily the best way to raise revenue. As recent
experience proves, it is a strong and growing economy--not high tax
rates--that generates substantial amounts of new revenue for the
Treasury. It was the growing economy that helped eliminate last year's
unified budget deficit.
In any event, voters around the country seem to believe that raising
taxes should only be done when there is broad support for the
proposition. The TLA will ensure that no tax can be raised in the
future without such consensus.
Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to cosponsor the initiative,
and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be
reprinted in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S.J. Res. 2

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of
each House concurring therein), That the following article is
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as
part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several States within seven years after
the date of its submission for ratification:

``Article --

``Section 1. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the
rate or base of any tax may pass only by a two-thirds
majority of the whole number of each House of Congress.
``Section 2. The Congress may waive section 1 when a
declaration of war is in effect. The Congress may also waive
section 1 when the United States is engaged in military
conflict when it causes an imminent and serious threat to
national security and is so declared by a joint resolution,
adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House,
which becomes law. Any provision of law which would, standing
alone, be subject to section 1 but for this section and which
becomes law pursuant to such a waiver shall be effective for
not longer than 2 years.
``Section 3. All votes taken by the House of
Representatives or the Senate under this article shall be
determined by yeas and nays and the names of persons voting
for and against shall be entered on the Journal of each House
respectively.''.
______

By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Biden, Mr. Grassley,
Mr. Inouye, Mr. DeWine, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Lieberman,
Mr. Mack, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Smith of New
Hampshire, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Helms, Mr. Frist,
Mr. Gramm, Mr. Lott, and Mrs. Hutchison):
S.J. Res. 3. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime
victims; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

proposing an amendment to the constitution of the united states to
protect the rights of crime victims

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, to ensure that crime victims are treated with
fairness, dignity, and respect, I rise to introduce, along with Senator
Feinstein, a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to
establish and protect the rights of victims of violent crime. I would
like to update the members on the latest form of the Crime Victims
Rights Amendment and outline our plans for the 106th Congress.
This joint resolution is the product of extended discussions with
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, Senators Hatch and
Biden, the Department of Justice, the White House, law enforcement
officials, major victims' rights groups, and such diverse scholars as
Professors Larry Tribe and Paul Cassell. As a result of these
discussions, the core values in the original amendment remain
unchanged, but the language has been refined to better protect the
interest of all parties.
Before I discuss the amendment in detail, I would like to thank
Senator Feinstein for her efforts to advance the cause of crime
victims' rights and for her very valuable work on the language of the
amendment. She has been a tireless and invaluable advocate for the
amendment.
Mr. President, the scales of justice are imbalanced. The U.S.
Constitution, mainly through amendments, grants those accused of crime
many constitutional rights, such as a speedy trial, a jury trial,
counsel, the right against self-incrimination, the right to be free
from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to subpoena
witnesses, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to due
process under the law.
The Constitution, however, guarantees no rights to crime victims. For
example, victims have no right to be present, no right to be informed
of hearings, no right to be heard at sentencing or at a parole hearing,
no right to insist on reasonable conditions of release to protect the
victim, no right to restitution, no right to challenge unending delays
in the disposition of their case, and no right to be told if they might
be in danger from release or escape of their attacker. This lack of
rights for crime victims has caused many victims and their families to
suffer twice, once at the hands of the criminal, and again at the hands
of a justice system that fails to protect them. The Crime Victim Rights
Amendment is a constitutional amendment that would bring balance to the
judicial system by giving crime victims the rights to be informed,
present, and heard at critical stages throughout their ordeal--the
least the system owes to those it failed to protect.

[[Page 1030]]

Mr. President, the current version, which is the 62d draft of the
amendment, contains the rights that we believe victims should have.
The amendment gives victims the rights:
To be notified of the proceedings;
To attend all public proceedings;
To be heard at certain crucial stages in the process;
To be notified of the offender's release or escape;
To consideration for a trial free from unreasonable delay;
To an order of restitution;
To have the safety of the victim considered in determining a release
from custody; and
To be notified of these rights and standing to enforce them.
These rights are the core of the amendment.
Mr. President, if reform is to be meaningful, it must be in the U.S.
Constitution. Since 1982, when the need for a constitutional amendment
was first recognized by a Presidential Task Force on Victims of Crime,
32 states have passed similar measures--by an average popular vote of
about 80 percent. These state measures have materially helped protect
crime victims; but they are inadequate for two reasons: First, each
amendment is different, and not all states have provided protection to
victims; a Federal amendment would establish a basic floor of crime
victims' rights for all Americans, just as the Federal Constitution
provides for the accused. Second, statutory and State constitutional
provisions are always subservient to the Federal Constitution; so, in
cases of conflict, the defendants' rights--which are already in the
U.S. Constitution--will always prevail. Our amendment will correct this
imbalance.
It is important to note that the number one recommendation in a
recent 400-page report by the Department of Justice on victims' rights
and services that ``the U.S. Constitution should be amended to
guarantee fundamental rights for victims of crime.'' The report
continued: ``A victims' rights constitutional amendment is the only
legal measure strong enough to rectify the current inconsistencies in
victims' rights laws that vary significantly from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction on the State and Federal levels.'' Further, ``Granting
victims of crime the ability to participate in the justice system is
exactly the type of participatory right the Constitution is designed to
protect and has been amended to permanently ensure. Such rights include
the right to vote on an equal basis and the right to be heard when the
government deprives one of life, liberty, or property.''
Until crime victims are protected by the United States Constitution,
the rights of victims will be subordinate to the rights of the
defendant. Indeed, the National Governors Association--by a vote of 49-
1--passed a resolution strongly supporting a constitutional amendment
for crime victims. The resolution stated: ``Despite * * * widespread
State initiatives, the rights of victims do not receive the same
consideration or protection as the rights of the accused. These rights
exist on different judicial levels. Victims are relegated to a position
of secondary importance in the judicial process.'' The resolution also
stated that ``The rights of victims have always received secondary
consideration within the U.S. judicial process, even though States and
the American people by a wide plurality consider victims' rights to be
fundamental. Protection of these rights is essential and can only come
from a fundamental change in our basic law: the U.S. Constitution.''
Some may say, ``I'm all for victims' rights but they don't need to be
in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is too hard to change. All
we need to do is pass some good statutes to make sure that victims are
treated fairly.'' But statutes have been inadequate to restore balance
and fairness for victims. The history of our country teaches us that
constitutional protections are needed to protect the basic rights of
the people. Our criminal justice system needs the kind of fundamental
reform that can only be accomplished through changes in our fundamental
law--the Constitution.
Attorney General Reno has confirmed the point, noting that, ``unless
the Constitution is amended to ensure basic rights to crime victims, we
will never correct the existing imbalance in this country between
defendants' constitutional rights and the haphazard patchwork of
victims' rights.'' Attempts to establish rights by federal or state
statute, or even state constitutional amendment, have proven
inadequate, after more then twenty years of trying.
On behalf of the Department of Justice, Ray Fisher, the Associate
Attorney General, recently testified that ``the state legislative route
to change has proven less than adequate in according victims their
rights. Rather than form a minimum baseline of protections, the state
provisions have produced a hodgepodge of rights that vary from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Rights that are guaranteed by the
Constitution will receive greater recognition and respect, and will
provide a national baseline.''
A number of legal commentators have reached similar conclusions. In
the 1997 Harvard Law Bulletin, Professor Laurence Tribe has explained
that the existing statutes and state amendments ``are likely, as
experience to date sadly shows, to provide too little real protection
whenever they come into conflict with bureaucratic habit, traditional
indifference, sheer inertia, or any mention of an accused's rights
regardless of whether those rights are genuinely threatened.'' He has
also stated, ``there appears to be a considerable body of evidence
showing that, even where statutory or regulatory or judge-made rules
exist to protect the participatory rights of victims, such rights often
tend to be honored in the breach. * * *''
Additionally, in the Baylor Law Review, Texas Court of Appeals
Justice Richard Barajas has explained that ``[i]t is apparent * * *
that state constitutional amendments alone cannot adequately address
the needs of crime victims.'' Federal statutes are also inadequate.
Professor Cassell's detailed 1998 testimony about the Oklahoma City
Bombing Case shows that, as he concluded, ``federal statutes are
insufficient to protect the rights of crime victims.''
Mr. President, I was pleased that in July 1998 the Senate Judiciary
Committee passed the amendment, S.J. Res. 44, by a bipartisan vote of
11 to 6. The amendment has strong bipartisan support. It was
cosponsored by 30 Republicans and 12 Democrats, including leadership
members such as Senators Lott, Thurmond, Mack, Coverdell, Craig,
Breaux, Reid, Torricelli, and Ford (now retired).
In the 106th Congress, Senator Feinstein and I will work hard to
ensure the amendment's passage. We plan to hold a hearing early in the
Congress, followed by a markup and consideration by the full Senate. We
welcome comments and suggestions from Members and other interested
parties.
Again, I would like to thank Senator Dianne Feinstein for her hard
work on this amendment and for her tireless efforts on behalf of crime
victims. Mr. President, for far to long, the criminal justice system
has ignored crime victims who deserve to be treated with fairness,
dignity, and respect. Our criminal justice system will never be truly
just as long as criminals have rights and victims have none.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint
resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S.J. Res. 3

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-
thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following
article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of
the United States, which shall be valid for all intents and
purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within
seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

Article--

Section 1. A victim of a crime of violence, as these terms
may be defined by law, shall have the rights:
to reasonable notice of, and not be excluded from, any
public proceedings relating to the crime;

[[Page 1031]]

to be heard, if present, and to submit a statement at all
such proceedings to determine a conditional release from
custody, and an acceptance of a negotiated plea, or a
sentence;
to the foregoing rights at a parole proceeding that is not
public, to the extent those rights are afforded to the
convicted offender;
to reasonable notice of a release or escape from custody
relating to the crime;
to consideration of the interest of the victim that any
trial be free from unreasonable delay;
to an order of restitution from the convicted offender;
to consideration for the safety of the victim in
determining any conditional release from custody relating to
the crime; and
to reasonable notice of the rights established by this
article.
Section 2. Only the victim or the victim's lawful
representative shall have standing to assert the rights
established by this article. Nothing in this article shall
provide grounds to stay or continue any trial, reopen any
proceeding or invalidate any ruling, except with respect to
conditional release or restitution or to provide rights
guaranteed by this article in future proceedings, without
staying or continuing a trial. Nothing in this article shall
give rise to or authorize the creation of a claim for damages
against the United States, a State, or political subdivision,
or a public officer or employee.
Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce
this article by appropriate legislation. Exceptions to the
rights established by this article may be created only when
necessary to achieve a compelling interest.
Section 4. This article shall take effect on the 180th day
after the ratification of this article. The right to an order
of restitution established by this article shall not apply to
crimes committed before the effective date of this article.
Section 5. The rights and immunities established by this
article shall apply in Federal and State proceedings,
including military proceedings to the extent that the
Congress may provide by law, juvenile justice proceedings,
and proceedings in the District of Columbia and any
commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague,
Senator Kyl, to once again introduce a constitutional amendment to
provide rights for victims of violent crime.
We have achieved significant progress in our effort to pass the
amendment. After working extensively--indeed, exhaustively--with
prosecutors, law professors, the Justice Department, the White House
Counsel's Office, and leaders of victims groups from around the country
to carefully craft and hone the amendment's language, we succeeded in
bringing the amendment to markup in the Judiciary Committee.
After numerous committee business meetings, and one of the most high-
minded debates in which I have been privileged to participate, the
Judiciary Committee passed the amendment by a strong, bipartisan vote.
Unfortunately, with the press of final business at the end of the
Congress, there was not sufficient time to consider the amendment on
the Senate floor and work it through the House.
So here we are now, carrying the fight forward into this new, 106th
Congress. We are fighting to ensure that the 8.6 million victims of
violent crime in the country receive the fair treatment by the judicial
system which they deserve. Too often in America victims of violent
crime are victimized a second time, by the government.
Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. What really
focused my attention on the need for greater protection of victims'
rights was a particularly horrifying case in 1974, in San Francisco,
when a man named Angelo Pavageau broke into the house of the Carlson
family in Portero Hill.
Pavageau tied Mr. Carlson to a chair, bludgeoning him to death with a
hammer, a chopping block, and a ceramic vase. He then repeatedly raped
Carlson's 24-year-old wife, breaking several of her bones. He slit her
wrist, tried to strangle her with a telephone cord, and then, before
fleeing, set the Carlson's home on fire--cowardly reteating into the
night, leaving this family to burn up in flames.
But Mrs. Carlson survived the fire. She courageously lived to testify
against her attacker. But she has been forced to change her name and
continues to live in fear that her attacker may, one day, be released.
When I was Mayor of San Francisco, she called me several times to
notify me that Pavageau was up for parole. Amazingly, it was up to Mrs.
Carlson to find out when his parole hearings were.
Mr. President, I believe this case represents a travesty of justice--
It just shouldn't have to be that way. I believe it should be the
responsibility of the state to send a letter through the mail or make a
phone call to let the victim know that her attacker is up for parole,
and she should have the opportunity to testify at this hearing.
But today, in many states in this great nation, victims still are not
made aware of the accused's trial, many times are not allowed in the
courtroom during the trial, and are not notified when a convicted
offender is released from prison.
I have vowed to do everything in my power to add a bit of balance to
our nation's justice system. This is why Senator Kyl and I have crafted
the Crime Victim's Rights Amendment before us today.
The people of California were the first in the nation to pass a crime
victims' amendment to the state constitution in 1982--the imitative
Proposition 8--and I supported its passage. This measure gave victims
the right to restitution, the right to testify at sentencing, probation
and parole hearings, established a right to safe and secure public
school campuses, and made various changes in criminal law. California's
Proposition 8 represented a good start to ensure victims' rights.
Since the passage of Proposition Eight, 31 more states have passed
constitutional amendments guaranteeing the rights of crime victims.
Just this past November, Mississippi, Montana and Tennessee added
victims' rights amendments to their state constitutions. These
amendments were overwhelmingly supported by the voters, winning with
93%, 71% and 89% of the vote, respectively.
But citizens in other states lack these basic rights. The 32
different state constitutional amendments differ from each other,
representing a patchwork quilt of rights that vary from state to state.
And even in those states which have state amendments, criminals can
assert rights grounded in the federal constitution to try to trump
those rights.
The United States Constitution guarantees numerous rights to the
accused in our society, all of which were established by amendment to
the Constitution. I steadfastly believe that this nation must attempt
to guarantee, at the very least, some basic rights to the millions
victimized by crime each year.
For those accused of crimes in this country, the Constitution
specifically protects:
The right to a grand jury indictment for capital or infamous crimes;
The prohibition against double jeopardy;
The right to due process;
The right to a speedy trial and the right to an impartial jury of
one's peers;
The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the criminal
accusation;
The right to confront witnesses;
The right to counsel;
The right to subpoena witnesses--and so on.
However, nowhere in the text of the U.S. Constitution does there
appear any guarantee of rights for crime victims.
To rectify this disparity, Senator Kyl and I are putting forth this
Crime Victims' Rights Amendment. This provides for certain rights for
victims of crime:
The right to be notified of public proceedings in their case;
The right not be excluded from these proceedings;
The right to be heard at proceedings to determine a release from
custody, sentencing, or acceptance of a negotiated plea;
The right to notice of the offender's release or escape;
The right to consideration for the interest of the victim in a trial
free from unreasonable delay;
The right to an order of restitution from the convicted offender;
The right to consideration for the safety of the victim in
determining any release from custody; and
The right to notice of your rights as a victim.

[[Page 1032]]

Conditions in our nation today are significantly different from those
in 1789, when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution without
providing explicitly for the rights of crime victims. In 1789, there
weren't 9 million victims of violent crime every year. In fact, there
are more victims of violent crime each year in this country now than
there were people in the country when the Constitution was written.
Moreover, there is good reason why defendants' rights were embedded
in the Constitution in 1789 and victims' rights were not--the way the
criminal justice system worked then, victims did not need any guarantee
of these rights.
In America in the late 18th century and well into the 19th century,
public prosecutors did not exist. Victims could, and did, commence
criminal cases themselves, by hiring a sheriff to arrest the defendant,
and initiating a private prosecution. The core rights in our
amendment--to notice, to attend, and to be heard--were inherently made
available to the victim. As Juan Cardenas, writing in the Harvard
Journal of Law and Public Policy, observed, ``At trial, generally,
there were no lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense.
Victims of crime simply acted as their own counsel, although wealthier
crime victims often hired a prosecutor.''
Gradually, public prosecution replaced the system of private
prosecution. With the explosive growth of crime in this country in
recent years (the rate of violent crime has more than quadrupled over
the last 35 years), it became easier and easier for the victim to be
left aside in the process.
As other scholars have noted:

With the establishment of the prosecutor the conditions for
the general alienation of the victim from the legal process
further increase. The victim is deprived of his ability to
determine the course of a case and is deprived of the ability
to gain restitution from the proceedings. Under such
conditions the incentives to report crime and to cooperate
with the prosecution diminish. As the importance of the
prosecution increases, the role of the victim is transformed
from principal actor to a resource that may be used at the
prosecutor's discretion.

Thus, we see why the Constitution must be amended to guarantee these
rights:
There was no need to guarantee these rights in the Constitution in
1789;
The criminal justice system has changed dramatically since then; and
The prevalence of crime in America has changed dramatically creating
the need and circumstances to respond to these developments and restore
balance in the criminal justice system by guaranteeing the rights of
violent crime victims in the Constitution.
Among the amendment's supporters are Professor Laurence Tribe of the
Harvard Law School.
Let me just briefly quote portions of his testimony from the House
hearing on the amendment last Congress:

The rights in question--rights of crime victims not to be
victimized yet again through the process by which government
bodies and officials prosecute, punish, and release the
accused or convicted offender--are indisputably basic human
rights against government, rights that any civilized system
of justice would aspire to protect and strive never to
violate.
[O]ur Constitution's central concerns involve protecting
the rights of individuals to participate in all those
government processes that directly and immediately involve
those individuals and affect their lives in some focused and
particular way . . . The parallel rights of victims to
participate in these proceedings are no less basic, even
though they find no parallel recognition in the explicit text
of the U.S. Constitution.
The fact that the States and Congress, within their
respective jurisdictions, already have ample affirmative
authority to enact rules protecting these rights is . . . not
a reason for opposing an amendment altogether . . . The
problem, rather, is that such rules are likely, as experience
to date sadly shows, to provide too little real protection
whenever they come into conflict with bureaucratic habit,
traditional indifference, sheer inertia, or any mention of an
accused's rights regardless of whether those rights are
genuinely threatened.

Some people argue that state victims' rights amendments are
sufficient.
However, crime victims throughout the country, including those in the
other 18 states, deserve to have rights, just as we applied civil
rights to people throughout our great nation 30 years ago.
Moreover, state amendments lack the force that a federal
constitutional amendment would have, and too often are given short
shrift:
Maryland has a state amendment. But when Cheryl Rae Enochs Resch was
beaten to death with a ceramic beer mug by her husband, her mother was
not notified of this killer's early release only two and a half years
into his ten year sentence, and was not given the opportunity to be
heard about this release, in violation of the state amendment.
Arizona has a state amendment. But an independent audit of victim-
witness programs in four Arizona counties, including Maricopa County
where Phoenix is located, found that:
Victims were not consistently notified of hearing during which
conditions of a defendant's release were discussed . . .
Victims were not consistently . . . conferred with by prosecutors
regarding plea bargains . . .; and
Victims were not consistently . . . provided with an opportunity to
request post-conviction notification.
Ohio has a state amendment. But when the murderer of Maxine Johnson's
husband change his plea, Maxine was not notified of the public hearing,
and then was not given the opportunity to testify at his sentencing, as
provided for in Ohio law.
A Justice Department-supported study of the implementation of state
victims' rights amendments, released last year, made similar findings:

Even in states with strong legal protections for victims'
rights, the Victims' Rights study revealed that many victims
are denied their rights. Statutes themselves appear to be
insufficient to guarantee the provision of victims' rights.
Nearly two-thirds of crime victims, even in states with
strong victims' rights protection, were not notified that the
accused offender was out on bond.
Nearly half of all victims, even in the strong protection
states, did not receive notice of the sentencing hearing--
notice that is essential if they are to exercise their right
to make a statement at sentencing.
A substantial number of victims reported that they were not
given an opportunity to make a victim impact statement at
sentencing or parole.

State amendments simply are not enough--they provide different rights
in different states, they do not exist at all in others, and they are
too often ignored when they do exist.
We implore members of this body to examine this amendment, and to
help to secure passage of this monumental piece of legislation.
The text of the amendment which we are introducing today is the very
same text which the Judiciary Committee passed on a strong bipartisan
basis last summer. Sen Kyl and I urge the leaders of the Senate and of
the committee to move this amendment expeditiously, so that the clock
does not run out on us yet again. This amendment has been the subject
of three Senate hearings, two hearings in the House, and an extensive
examination and debate in the Judiciary Committee.
We urge Senators Hatch, the distinguished Chairman of the committee,
to schedule a hearing on the amendment in January or February, with a
markup to follow shortly thereafter. It is our hope that the committee
can complete its action with all deliberate speed, and we call upon our
distinguished Leaders, Senators Lott and Daschle, to commit to a floor
vote on the amendment during National Victims' Rights Week in late
April.
After two hundred years, doesn't this Nation owe something to the
millions of victims of violent crime? I believe that is our obligation
and should be our biggest priority--not only for the crime victims,
but, for all Americans--to ensure passage of a Crime Victims' Rights
Constitutional Amendment.
I want to personally thank Senator Kyl for his tireless efforts to
accomplish this amendment, and to say that I look forward to continuing
to work with him in the months to come.
______

By Mr. KYL:
S.J. Res. 4. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to provide that expenditures for a
fiscal year shall exceed neither revenues for such fiscal year nor 19
per centum of the Nation's gross domestic product for the calendar

[[Page 1033]]

year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.

balanced budget/spending limitation amendment

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Balanced
Budget/Spending Limitation Amendment--a joint resolution proposing to
amend the Constitution of the United States to establish both a federal
spending limit and a requirement that the federal government maintain a
balanced budget.
Mr. President, it seems to me that although we may have succeeded in
balancing the unified budget, we still have two very different visions
of where we should be headed. Is a balanced budget the paramount goal,
even if it comes with substantially higher taxes and more spending? Or
is the real goal of a balanced budget to be more responsible with
people's hard-earned tax dollars--to limit government's size and give
people more choices and more control over their lives? Before we try to
answer those questions, let us try to give them some context.
When we balanced the unified budget last year, we did so by taxing
and spending at a level of about $1.72 trillion. That is a level of
spending that is 25 percent higher than when President Clinton took
office just six years ago. Our government now spends the equivalent of
$6,700 for every man, woman, and child in the country every year. That
is the equivalent of nearly $27,000 for the average family of four. But
all of that spending comes at a tremendous cost to hard-working
taxpayers.
The Tax Foundation estimates that the median income family in America
saw its combined federal, state, and local tax bill climb to 37.6
percent of income in 1997--up from 37.3 percent the year before. That
is more than the average family spends on food, clothing, shelter, and
transportation combined. Put another way, in too many families, one
parent is working to put food on the table, while the other is working
almost full time just to pay the bill for the government bureaucracy.
Perhaps a different measure of how heavy a tax burden the federal
government imposes would be helpful. Consider that federal revenues hit
a peacetime high of 19.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in
1997 and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will continue
to climb--to 20.5 percent in 1998 and 20.6 percent in 1999. That will
be higher than any year since 1945, and it would be only the third and
fourth years in our nation's entire history that revenues have exceeded
20 percent of national income. Notably, the first two times revenues
broke the 20 percent mark, the economy tipped into recession.
For me, it is not enough to balance the budget if it means that hard-
working families continue to be overtaxed. It is not enough to balance
the budget if government continues to grow, seemingly without limits,
taking choice and freedom away from people in the process. And it is
not enough to balance the budget by collecting so much in taxes that it
leads the economy into recession.
A balanced budget is not the only goal, or even the highest goal. A
balanced budget should be the way we find what is the appropriate size
and scope of government--the way to make Washington more respectful of
hard-working taxpayers' earnings and their desire to do right by
themselves and their families. That is where our paramount concern
should be--with the taxpayers.
Mr. President, last year was the first time in nearly 30 years that
Washington managed to balance its books. In fact, we posted a record
unified budget surplus of $70 billion, and we did so even though we
have no constitutional requirement for a balanced budget. Some will use
that fact to argue there is no need for a balanced budget amendment. I
would suggest to them that they look back at what happened last
October.
Just three weeks--exactly 21 days--after confirming that the federal
government had indeed achieved its first budget surplus in a
generation, Congress passed, and the President signed, a bill that used
fully a third of the surplus for increased spending on a variety of
government programs other than Social Security, tax relief, or
repayment of the national debt.
Many people will recall that President Clinton pledged in his State
of the Union address a year ago to ``save every penny of any surplus''
for Social Security, yet he was the first in line with a long list of
programs to be funded out of the budget surplus. And fearful that if
the President did not get his way he would veto the budget and tar
Congress with the blame for another government shutdown, many Members
of Congress went along and voted for this raid on the surplus.
That was just the first in what is expected to be a series of efforts
by President Clinton to spend down the surplus in coming months.
Another $2.5 billion supplemental spending request is already in the
works.
Coupled with a peacetime tax burden that is at an all-time high and
growing, this portends a dangerous return to the old ways of budget-
busting, bigger government--that is, unless we agree to abide by the
lasting discipline of a constitutional requirement to balance the
budget.
The Balanced Budget/Spending Limitation Amendment would impose
discipline on Congress and the President in two ways. First, it would
require that we maintain a balanced federal budget. Second, consistent
with the vision of limited government, it would limit federal spending
to 19 percent of the national income, as measured by the Gross Domestic
Product. That is roughly the level of revenue collected by the
government over the last 40 years. Interestingly, a December 1998
report by the Joint Economic Committee concludes that the optimal level
of spending may actually be lower--17.5 percent of GDP.
In other words, beyond a certain point--the Joint Committee suggests
it is 17.5 percent of GDP--government's claim to private resources can
actually hurt the economy. Consider, for example, that economic growth
during the high-tax Clinton years has averaged only about 2.3 percent
annually, whereas we averaged 3.9 percent annual growth during the
period after the Reagan tax cuts and before the 1990 tax increase.
Raising sufficient revenue to pay for government's essential
operations is obviously a necessary part of governing, but raising tax
rates is not necessarily the best way to raise revenue. As recent
experience proves, it is a strong and growing economy--not high tax
rates--that generates substantial amounts of new revenue for the
Treasury. It was the growing economy that helped eliminate last year's
unified budget deficit.
The advantage of the Balanced Budget/Spending Limitation Amendment is
that it keeps our eye on the ball. It tells Congress to limit spending.
And by linking spending to economic growth, it gives Congress a
positive incentive to enact pro-growth economic and tax policies. Only
a healthy and growing economy--measured by GDP--would increase the
dollar amount that Congress is allowed to spend, although always
proportionate to the size of the economy. In other words, 19 percent of
a larger GDP represents more revenue to the Treasury than 19 percent of
a smaller GDP.
I urge my colleagues to consider the need for a balanced budget
amendment, and the advantages of the Balanced Budget/Spending
Limitation Amendment in particular. I ask unanimous consent that the
text of the amendment be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. J. Res. 4

[[Page 1034]]

``Article--

``Section 1. Except as provided in this article, outlays of
the United States Government for any fiscal year may not
exceed its receipts for that fiscal year.
``Section 2. Except as provided in this article, the
outlays of the United States Government for a fiscal year may
not exceed 19 per centum of the Nation's gross domestic
product for the last calendar year ending before the
beginning of such fiscal year.
``Section 3. The Congress may, by law, provide for
suspension of the effect of sections 1 or 2 of this article
for any fiscal year for which three-fifths of the whole
number of each House shall provide, by a roll call vote, for
a specific excess of outlays over receipts or over 19 per
centium of the Nation's gross domestic product for the last
calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal
year.
``Section 4. Total receipts shall include all receipts of
the United States Government except those derived from
borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the
United States Government except those for the repayment of
debt principal.
``Section 5. This article shall apply to the second fiscal
year beginning after its ratification and to subsequent
fiscal years.''.
______

By Mr. GRAMM (for himself and Mr. Gorton):
S.J. Res. 5. A joint resolution to provide for a Balanced Budget
Constitutional Amendment that prohibits the use of Social Security
surpluses to achieve compliance; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

balanced budget constitutional amendment

Mr. GRAMM. President, I rise today with Senator Gorton to introduce a
Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment which is designed to protect
Social Security. Since we last considered a balanced budget amendment
in the Senate, we have achieved balance in the unified federal budget
for the first time in 30 years, and have made substantial progress
toward achieving balance without relying on the surpluses currently
accumulating in Social Security. For 1998, the Department of the
Treasury reports that the federal government ran a unified budget
surplus of $70 billion, and an on-budget deficit of $29 billion when
the $99 billion surplus in Social Security is not counted. This on-
budget deficit is projected to disappear by 2002 under current budget
policies.
The Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment I am introducing today
is identical to S.J. Res. 1 of the 105th Congress, which received 66
votes in the Senate on March 4, 1997, except that surplus revenues in
Social Security are not counted in determining compliance.
The President and a majority of Congress have expressed support for
balancing the budget without counting Social Security surpluses, and
now that goal is within our reach. We should take this opportunity to
approve this Constitutional amendment and send it to the States for
ratification. This Constitutional amendment would provide the structure
and enforcement mechanism to allow us to achieve this bipartisan goal.
______

By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. McCain, and Mr.
Bryan):
S.J. Res. 6. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and
expenditures intended to affect elections; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to address a problem with
which we are all too familiar: the ever-increasing cost of political
campaigns. Sadly, this cost can be counted not only in millions of
dollars but also in lost credibility. Each election year, our political
system and we as representatives lose the invaluable and irreplaceable
trust of the American people.
The enormous amount of money required to wage a political campaign
today has given rise to the pervasive belief that our elections--
indeed, even we ourselves--are up for sale to the highest bidder.
Though this is not the reality, the fact that it is the perception is
almost as damning.
It is time to strike a blow against the anything-goes fundraising and
spending encouraged by both political parties. The need to limit
campaign expenditures is more urgent than ever: the total cost of
Congressional campaigns skyrocketed from $446 million in 1990 to over
$620 million in 1996. This represents a 71-percent increase in just six
years. Although fundraising slowed in the election cycle just ended,
candidates for general election in 1998 still spent over $10 million
more than their counterparts in 1996.
Make no mistake: this lull is a temporary one. Experts attribute the
slowed spending last year to the unusually large number of
uncompetitive elections. I know this is true because in my state, which
was the setting for highly competitive elections for my Senate seat as
well as the governorship and other state offices, candidates spent
record amounts and made 1998 the most expensive election year in South
Carolina history. In fact, although the total cost of all Congressional
elections increased only slightly this year, candidates for Senate
office spent over 15 percent more than their counterparts in 1996.
We can be sure that in 2000, election spending will skyrocket to new,
astounding levels. And we can be equally sure that this will add to the
public's already overwhelming cynicism about its representatives and to
the problem of corruption, or at least its appearance in our political
system.
At best, the obsession with money distracts us from the people's
business. At worst, it corrupts and degrades the entire political
process. Fundraisers used to be arranged so they don't conflict with
the Senate schedule; nowadays, the Senate schedule is regularly shifted
to accommodate fundraisers.
All this is the result of the rising costs of political campaigns.
Ironically, campaign expenditures have risen dramatically, far
exceeding inflation, since Congress attempted campaign finance reform
in 1974. Even greater than the increases in aggregate campaign costs
were those for average winning candidates--the most useful measure of
the real costs of running for office. The average cost for a winning
House candidate rose from $87,000 in 1976 to over $640,000 in 1998. For
a victorious Senate candidate, the cost of victory rose from $609,000
to $4.4 million last year.
I remember Senator Richard Russell used to say, ``They give you a six
year term in this U.S. Senate: two years to be a statesman, the next
two years to be a politician, and the last two years to be a
demagogue.'' Regrettably, we are no longer afforded even 2 years as
statesmen. We proceed straight to demagoguery after an election because
of the imperatives of raising money.
The public demands the system be cleaned up. But how? For years,
Senator Specter and I have introduced a constitutional amendment
allowing Congress to set reasonable campaign expenditure limits. Today
Senator Specter and I will reintroduce our amendment to empower
Congress and the States to limit campaign spending as they see fit. I
believe a constitutional amendment is the only way to fix the system;
yet since 1976, Congress has failed to adopt one. It has opted instead
for a series of half-hearted, piece-meal solutions, with predictable
results.
For nearly a quarter of a century, Congress has tried to tackle
runaway campaign spending through statutory means. Again and again,
Congress has failed. Let us resolve not to repeat the mistakes of past
campaign finance reform efforts, which have bogged down in partisanship
as Democrats and Republicans each have tried to gore the other's sacred
cows.
The most recent statutory attempt to reform our tangled campaign
system was the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Although I
supported this legislation and will do so again this year, I have grave
doubts about its ability to effectively reform our tangled campaign
finance system. I fear McCain-Feingold never will be enacted, and that
even if it passes, it will not withstand the Supreme Court's scrutiny.
Since 1976, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it will not
uphold any law that limits the money political candidates can spend to
win office. The most recent example of the Court's position, as well as
of the obstacles local and state officials attempting reform

[[Page 1035]]

face in their courts, came last November, when the Supreme Court
refused to entertain an appeal from the City of Cincinnati involving an
ordinance that limited the amount city council candidates could spend
trying to get elected. That ordinance had been struck down by a lower
federal court as unconstitutional. So you see, Mr. President, no
statutory legislation--at the federal, state, or local level--is going
to succeed at cleaning up our political system because no such
legislation will pass constitutional muster.
The framework for today's campaign finance system was erected back in
1974, when Congress responded to public outrage over the Watergate
scandals and the disturbing money trails from the 1972 Presidential
election by passing, on a bipartisan basis, a comprehensive campaign
finance law. I was here in 1974, and I was proud to support the Federal
Election Campaign Act. The centerpiece of this reform was a limitation
on campaign expenditures. Congress recognized that spending limits were
the only rational alternative to a system that essentially awards
office to the highest bidder.
Unfortunately, in 1976 the Supreme Court overturned these spending
limits in its infamous Buckley versus Valeo decision. The Court
mistakenly equated a candidate's right to spend unlimited sums of money
with his right to free speech. In the face of spirited dissents, the
Court drew a tortuous distinction between campaign contributions and
campaign expenditures. The Court concluded that limiting an
individual's campaign contributions was a justifiable abridgment of the
First Amendment, on the grounds that ``the governmental interest in
preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption outweighs
considerations of free speech.''
Yet the Court also concluded, in a dichotomous and confusing
decision, that the state's interest in preventing corruption and its
appearance did not justify limiting a candidate's total expenditures.
This, the Court ruled, constituted an unacceptable infringement on
candidates' speech.
I have never been able to fathom why that same test--the governmental
interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption--
does not justify limits on campaign spending. The Court committed a
grave error by striking down spending limits as a threat to free
speech. The fact is, imposing spending limits in federal campaigns
would help restore the free speech that has been eroded by the Buckley
decision.
As Professor Gerald G. Ashdown wrote in the New England Law Review,
amending the Constitution to allow Congress to regulate campaign
expenditures is ``the most theoretically attractive of the approaches
to reform since, from a broad free speech perspective, the decision in
Buckley is misguided and has worsened the campaign finance
atmosphere.'' Adds Professor Ashdown: ``If Congress could
constitutionally limit the campaign expenditures of individuals,
candidates, and committees, along with contributions, most of the
troubles . . . would be eliminated.''
Let us be done with the hollow charge that spending limits are
somehow an attack on freedom of speech. As Justice Byron White pointed
out in his dissent from the majority's Buckley opinion, both
contribution limits and spending limits are neutral as to the content
of speech and are not motivated by fear of the consequences of
political speech in general.
The Buckley decision created a double bind. It upheld restrictions on
campaign contributions but struck down restrictions on how much
candidates with deep pockets can spend. The Court ignored the practical
reality that if my opponent has only $50,000 to spend in a race and I
have $1 million, then I can effectively deprive him of speech. By
failing to respond to my advertising, my cash-poor opponent will appear
unwilling to speak up in his own defense.
Justice Thurgood Marshall zeroed in on this disparity in his dissent
to Buckley. By striking down the limit on what a candidate can spend,
Justice Marshall said, ``It would appear to follow that the candidate
with a substantial personal fortune at his disposal is off to a
significant head start.''
Indeed, Justice Marshall went further. He argued that by upholding
the limitations on contributions but striking down limits on overall
spending, the Court put an additional premium on a candidate's personal
wealth. Justice Marshall was dead right. The Buckley decision has been
a boon to wealthy candidates, who can flood the airwaves and drown out
their opponents' voices.
Make no mistake: political speech is not free. A political
candidate's ability to disseminate his ideas and speak to the voters
depends entirely on his finances. Thus, candidates who are personally
wealthy or possess large campaign coffers have a tremendous advantage
over poorer candidates--they always will enjoy more speech. The
amendment Senator Specter and I propose today will help level the
playing field between rich and poor candidates and ensure that all
enjoy equal speech.
Believe me, Mr. President, I am not enunciating any radical view
today. The Court itself equated money with speech in its Buckley
decision. Of course, the Court--and critics of this amendment--adheres
to the belief that limiting candidate expenditures is a violation of
the First Amendment. Yet the Court rules in 1976 that there exist
compelling interests--in this case, the need to prevent the appearance
and reality of corruption--to justify the state in circumscribing
protected speech. All this amendment does is apply the Court's
rationale to candidates' speech.
Buckley's nullification of spending limits has helped give rise to
American's belief that political offices are up for sale to the highest
bidder and has curtailed public discourse. By rendering spending limits
impossible it has fueled the escalating costs of campaigns and forced
politicians to focus more and more on fundraising and less on important
public issues. Our urgent task is to right the injustice of Buckley
versus Valeo by empowering Congress to limit campaign spending.
My proposed constitutional amendment would accomplish this. It does
not proscribe specific cures for what ails our campaign finance system.
Instead, it would provide Congress the authority to reform the system
by limiting candidate spending.
To a distressing degree today, elections are determined not in the
political marketplace but in the financial marketplace. Our elections
are supposed to be contests of ideas, but too often they degenerate
into megadollar derbies, paper chases through the board rooms of
corporations and special interests.
Mr. President, campaign spending must be brought under control. The
constitutional amendment I have proposed would permit Congress to
impose fair, responsible, workable limits on Federal campaign
expenditures.
Such a reform would have four important effects. It would end the
mindless pursuits of enormous campaign war chests. Also, it would free
candidates from their current obsession with fundraising and allow them
to focus more on issues and ideas; once elected to office, we wouldn't
have to spend 20 percent of our time raising money to keep our seats.
Third, it would curb the influence of special interests. And finally,
it would create a more level playing field for all candidates.
Before concluding, Mr. President, I would like to elaborate on the
advantages of a constitutional amendment such as I propose over
statutory attempts to reform the campaign system. Recent history amply
demonstrates the practicality and viability of this constitutional
route. It is not coincidence that the six most-recent amendments to the
Constitution have dealt with Federal election issues. These are
profound issues which go to the heart of our democracy; it is entirely
appropriate that they be addressed through a constitutional amendment.
And let's not be distracted by the argument that amending the
constitution will take too long. Take too long? We have been dithering
on this campaign finance issue since the early 1970s, and we haven't
advanced the ball a single yard. It has been a quarter of a century,
and no legislative solution has done the job.

[[Page 1036]]

Excluding the unusual case of the Twenty-seventh Amendment, which
required over 200 years to be ratified, the last five constitutional
amendments took an average of only 17 months to be adopted. There is no
reason why we cannot pass this joint resolution, submit it to the
States for a vote, and ratify the amendment in time for it to govern
the 2000 elections. Indeed, this approach could prove more expeditious
than the alternative statutory approach. This joint resolution, once
passed by the Congress, will go directly to the States for
ratification. Once ratified, it will become the law of the land and
will not be subject to veto or Supreme Court challenge.
Furthermore, I anticipate and reject the argument that if we were to
pass and ratify this amendment, Democrats and Republicans would be
unable to hammer out a mutually acceptable formula of campaign
expenditure limits. A Democratic Congress and Republican President did
exactly that in 1974, and we can certainly do it again.
Mr. President, this amendment will address the campaign finance mess
directly, decisively, and conclusively. The Supreme Court has chosen to
ignore the overwhelmingly detrimental effects of money in today's
campaigns. In the Buckley decision, it elucidated a vague and
inconsistent definition of free speech. In its place, I urge passage of
this amendment. Let us ensure equal freedom of expression for all who
seek Federal office.
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Craig, and Mr.
Ashcroft):
S.J. Res. 7. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to require a balanced budget; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

the constitutional balanced budget act of 1999

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am today, once again, introducing a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. In so doing, I continue
the effort that I and many of my colleagues have long pursued to
provide a permanent and strong mandate for a fiscally responsible path
for our Nation.
It is a political reality, of course, that Congress' success in
decreasing our deficit levels and achieving a balanced budget in the
105th Congress to a certain extent mitigated the urgency of passing
this Constitutional Amendment.
In my view, however, this is the ideal time to move forward on a
constitutional amendment. The fact that we have reached a balanced
budget has shown that it can be done. Significantly, it has refuted the
arguments and scare tactics of opponents that a balanced budget would
mean the end of Social Security and Medicare. Rather, we now have a
record to demonstrate the strong benefits of a balanced budget to our
economy in general and to each segment of our society in particular.
I am as proud as any Member of this body of our recent success in
restraining the deficit. But that success does not mean that this
amendment is no longer necessary. Our history, unfortunately,
demonstrates that the fiscal discipline of recent years is the
exception, not the rule. The political incentives in this town to spend
now and pay later remain. Thus, it is as true now as it always been
that only a structural change in our basic charter can ensure long term
fiscal responsibility and a secure future for our children and
grandchildren. This is a matter that remains vital to the economic
health of the State of Utah and the Nation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this joint
resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S.J. Res. 7

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-
thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following
article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution,
which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of
the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-
fourths of the several States within seven years after the
date of its submission to the States for ratification:

``Article--

``Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not
exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-
fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall
provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts
by a rollcall vote.
``Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States
held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-
fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law
for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
``Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall
transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United
States Government for that fiscal year, in which total
outlays do not exceed total receipts.
``Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law
unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each
House by a rollcall vote.
``Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this
article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is
in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for
any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in
military conflict which causes an imminent and serious
military threat to national security and is so declared by a
joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number
of each House, which becomes law.
``Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this
article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on
estimates of outlays and receipts.
``Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of
the United States Government except those derived from
borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the
United States Government except for those for repayment of
debt principal.
``Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with
fiscal year 2004 or with the second fiscal year beginning
after its ratification, whichever is later.''.

____________________